A 12-Month Campaign of Fake News To Influence Elections Costs $400K, Says Report (bleepingcomputer.com)

So cheap! by fubarrr · 2017-06-14 01:11 · Score: 1

So cheap!

Propaganda on a budget by rmdingler · 2017-06-14 01:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

Winning the hearts and minds of the populace has always been a dirty business. From Machiavelli to Goebbels to the more recent trend of powerful men buying up newspapers that are not profitable in the traditional sense.

When paying for influence goes on sale, does it not lessen the importance of the elite?

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

Ernest Hemingway

Re:Propaganda on a budget by bdares · 2017-06-14 05:06 · Score: 1

When influence can be bought with money, it gives more influence to those with money. AKA "elite".

Educated population by Kohath · 2017-06-14 01:13 · Score: 1, Insightful

Good thing we have such awesome government schools. Without the top notch critical thinking skills these havens of learning provide, our population might be susceptible to these shallow disinformation campaigns.

But who hasn't marveled at the near genius of the average government school student? Achievement, discernment, and wisdom is the true hallmark of a government school education.

Fake news doesn't have a chance.

Re:Educated population by drinkypoo · 2017-06-14 01:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

Time for me to spend some karma (as I will do) pointing out that the Religious Reich is always trying to shit on public education because nobody would believe any of their shit if they had a grounding in logic and critical thinking. The single strongest negative correlation to religion is education. Church membership is plummeting faster than any time in history. Churches all over the western world are going out of business (being merely businesses that sell... hope) and the buildings being turned into homes and coffeeshops, and good riddance.
Religion is a plague that retards progress.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Educated population by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-14 01:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

Good thing we have such awesome government schools. Without the top notch critical thinking skills these havens of learning provide, our population might be susceptible to these shallow disinformation campaigns.
I received a better education from public school than private school, and I'm rather aware that:
- Trump is actually doing shit. Congress has not stopped. Legislation is passing.
- Hillary isn't fucking going to prison.
- Trump isn't getting impeached.
Meanwhile, my ol' private school pals either believe Pelosi is in her basement looking for the impeachment she took off the table, or that Clinton and friends will be frogmarched down Pennsylvania avenue in orange jumpsuits within the week.
Our education system, as a whole, blows asschunks. The government has demonstrated an unbelievable inability to fix it, but that magic free hand of the market hasn't come up with shit, either.
Re:Educated population by CrimsonAvenger · 2017-06-14 01:45 · Score: 1

Sounds like Fake News to me....

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Educated population by Kohath · 2017-06-14 01:49 · Score: 1

So religion is bad and nothing else matters at all?
Re:Educated population by XXongo · 2017-06-14 01:56 · Score: 1

The actual answer is, some public schools (what you call "government schools") are exceptionally good, and some are extremely poor. Some private schools are very good, and some are extremely poor.
By picking and choosing which particular schools you want to focus on, you can support a conclusion that is anti- or is pro- public school, or anti- or pro- private school, as you like.

Good thing we have such awesome government schools. Without the top notch critical thinking skills these havens of learning provide, our population might be susceptible to these shallow disinformation campaigns. But who hasn't marveled at the near genius of the average government school student? Achievement, discernment, and wisdom is the true hallmark of a government school education. Fake news doesn't have a chance.
My suggestion would be that if you're looking for "near genius," that this is a characteristic of the student, not of the school.
By the way, it is very difficult to make sarcasm work on the internet, since your posts are always being read against a background noise of cluelessness. Have you considered just saying what you mean, instead of saying the opposite of what you mean and trying to let the reader decode it?
Re:Educated population by Tranzistors · 2017-06-14 02:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

[..]nobody would believe any of their shit if they had a grounding in logic and critical thinking[...]
I guess you are not familiar with the theological traditions of Abrahamic religions, which are not strangers to logic or critical thinking. The problem is not lacking those skills, it's the lack of domain knowledge. I used to believe a lot of bullshit (Who am I kidding? I still believe a lot of bullshit, I just don't know which ones are bs), but rarely have I got rid of false beliefs because I learned De Morgan's laws, or found out about yet another fallacy. If you don't know anything about chemistry and biology, “structured water” sounds as credible as quantum cryptography.
Re:Educated population by XXongo · 2017-06-14 02:21 · Score: 1

[..]nobody would believe any of their shit if they had a grounding in logic and critical thinking[...]
I guess you are not familiar with the theological traditions of Abrahamic religions, which are not strangers to logic or critical thinking.
Some splinters are, but by no means all. The examples of "theological traditions of Abrahamic religions" that have been actively hostile to all critical thinking are far too numerous to list. And many of these run "schools."

The problem is not lacking those skills, it's the lack of domain knowledge. I used to believe a lot of bullshit (Who am I kidding? I still believe a lot of bullshit, I just don't know which ones are bs), but rarely have I got rid of false beliefs because I learned De Morgan's laws, or found out about yet another fallacy. If you don't know anything about chemistry and biology, “structured water” sounds as credible as quantum cryptography.
You have a point there.
Re:Educated population by rickb928 · 2017-06-14 02:26 · Score: 2

Neither is civility.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Re:Educated population by MobyDisk · 2017-06-14 02:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

Religious Reich is always trying to shit on public education
Your term "religious reich" conjures images of flat-earthers and young-earthers trying to change school boards to ban actual science. As you point-out, real actual science is the cure. Fair enough, but do not make the mistake of believing that this problem only exists on the right: the far left is doing the same thing.
I know pseudo-science hippies who take Homeopathic remedies, attend Reiki sessions, bless their water to change it's molecular structure to be happier, and plaster Facebook with articles about how nuclear plants in Japan are causing birth defects in Wyoming. They caution me that I live to close to power lines, then wear magnetic bracelets to improve the flow of their aura.
The problem is kinda related to religion, but it isn't religion itself. Questioning the origin of the universe, believing in God, and being spiritual aren't problems in-and-of-themselves. I've known suicidal drug-addicts who just needed to know they are loved, who were afraid of death. And religion saved them and gave them productive lives. The real problem is dogma.

Religion is a plague that retards progress.
Dogma is a plague that retards progress. It is what organized religion and organized political parties devolve into. But dogma != religion. When people on Slashdot talk about religion, they are rarely talking about God. Instead, they are talking about some particular dogma. It's not God that is the problem, it is humans. Part of the reason we conflate religion with dogma is because the media can't report on healthy normal people having normal religious practices. They can only show the extremists because that is all that is newsworthy.
Re:Educated population by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-14 02:50 · Score: 1

Religious schools persistently turn out higher academic scores in other domains than public schools.

And while we're at it, here's virtually every branch of science, founded by theists.

Atheism is still a politically ineffectual, minority view, soon to be eliminated down to the very last man by... evolution.

Enjoy.
Re:Educated population by mean+pun · 2017-06-14 03:00 · Score: 2

I am not a member of the "Religious Reich", and I will shit on public education. Just browsing through the posts here, it is obvious that spelling, grammar, and reading comprehension are no longer a priority.
I strongly suspect you do not understand the point of the poster you're replying to. Hint: s/he's using 'shit on' in a different way than you do.
Re: Educated population by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-14 03:07 · Score: 1

My points are exactly what they were, and remain valid regardless of how dense you may be.
If we're looking at correlation between religiousness and general success at learning, as the OP, does, then the positive correlation is clear.
That point stands, the political ineffectualness of atheism stands, and the fact virtually every branch of science was founded by theists stands, and the fact that you and every single like-minded atheist will be eliminated by evolution and irrelevant within 150 years stands. Unless you want to argue for the survival of some sort of "spirit of atheism", and then point out where that specifically exists at that point in material form.
So yeah, all point there, all fully valid, your silly racism non-sequitur changing nothing.
Re:Educated population by umghhh · 2017-06-14 04:15 · Score: 1

Not sure about the society you live in in mine the religious congregation of christian variety indeed go down. But hey we have lots of newcomers who are strong believers. They call the thing religion of peace. According to the Pew Research Center, Islam is set to equal Christianity in number of adherents by the year 2050. Islam is set to grow faster than any other major world religion, reaching a total number of 2.76 billion (an increase of 73%).
As for Christanity, the biggest of them now this is what Pew research says (in 2015) about their demise : by 2050, the Christian population is expected to exceed 3 billion.
Whether this is a good or bad development(*) may be a subject of heated debate. Yet talking religion being in decline is a bit premature, is it not? Educate or if that is impossible at least inform yourself before you speak.
* - I left the church some time ago. I was not much of a good church goer anyway. Maybe I was a good christian or maybe not. Who is there to judge. I do not care all that much, if I did I would not have left, or? However the research on the subject shows that for instance the gated communities in US last longer if they are based on religious principles. Other research shows that social cohesion especially in times of turmoil is higher for societies that observe some common religion. That is important because it helps them survive. Then there is religious zealotry that humans without regular faith show. This has all signs of bigotry and hatred that is biggest problem that all religion have. Then you mentioned hope - what is wrong with hope being given to people? I have not much hope of anything especially after looking into the news box. Yet there are others who prefer to have hope and get it whatever way possible. I do not subscribe to any religion but if any is going to give hope to the people this may be a good thing. People that lost hope may be extremely dangerous if their believes conflict with existence of humanity. But that is OT, the fact of the matter is: religious observance contrary to your observation is growing in the world.
Re:Educated population by Kohath · 2017-06-14 04:22 · Score: 1

The actual answer is, some public schools (what you call "government schools") are exceptionally good, and some are extremely poor.
Anyone who tries to do anything about the bad ones (besides dumping endless truckloads of money into them) is prevented because "What if it hurts the good ones!? My kids go to one of the good ones (because we're rich and bought an expensive house in a nice neighborhood)." So there's no hope for the kids who go to the bad government schools.
Re:Educated population by orgelspieler · 2017-06-14 05:58 · Score: 2

I think you're wrong on this one. You are conflating religion in general with whatever this thing we have in America can be called. It's not really religion any more than ISIS is a political party.
I am a Methodist (now). We believe science and education in general are important. We believe in individual liberties, so we tend to respect other people who don't share our beliefs. We also believe in helping others in need, protecting the resources God gave us, and practicing grace and forgiveness with our fellow man.
Nothing about my religion makes me act in a way that retards progress. Further, in respect to the arts, religion has historically encouraged progress, just look at anything from the Sistine Chapel to Sagrada Familia, from Praetorius to Messiaen. This could also be extended to historical religions, as well. Now, it's up for debate whether retarding progress, on the whole, is even something bad. But I'll take your premise at face value for now.
The problem, at least among Christians, is when they stray too far from the red letters. I tend to blame Paul for sowing the early seeds of what we have today. Sure he had some good points "there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Gentile, barbarian nor Scythian" (can't remember the exact quote and too lazy to look it up.) But he had some boneheaded ideas, too (especially about gender roles). He simultaneously claimed Jesus freed us from the old law, while making new proscriptions that were suspiciously like the Pentateuch.
Over the centuries, these competing ideals of love-and-mercy versus shame-and-guilt became ingrained in organized religion. These religions split and evolved and split and evolved. Each successive generation piling on stranger rules and intense emotional baggage. Arguably none of it was in keeping with a simple Nazarene who just wanted everybody to love one another.
Somehow all of this translated to a little boy in a border town being told he couldn't watch the Smurfs because they are demonic, but the scary-as-fuck "Thief in the Night" was required watching. Shortly this progressed to "pro-life" rallies where he was encouraged to verbally abuse girls who were looking for some help in a time of need. Then, after moving to even-more-"conservative" west Texas, the same kid was taken to a brainwashing session at a large church where the bombardier beetle was used as an argument against evolution. All of this was accompanied by years of shame for surviving sexual assault.
That kind of "religion" is a plague. It is organized hate-mongering designed to keep people in the pews giving money for fear of going to hell. They have little to nothing to do with the loving message they claim to hold dear. Then you have the likes of Creflo Dollar and Joel Osteen who may seem more loving, but they take their toll financially rather than emotionally. Little old ladies send in their last pension dollars as a "seed" that is more likely to fuel a supercar.
So I see where you are coming from. This thing we call "religion" in America has become pretty foul. But I don't think it's an immutable problem with religion per se. I think it has to do with imperfect humans doing a shitty job. It's like we took the Oatmeal "How to Suck at Your Religion" for a how-to article.
As an aside, I think most Americans would be horrified if they ever actually read the bible. It is distinctly "unamerican." Look at the original church in the book of Acts. These people were literally communists, in that they formed a commune. Also, I can guaran-damn-tee you that most "religious" Americans don't tithe. Don't even get me started on "If a man steals your shirt, give him your cloak, too."
Re:Educated population by d34thm0nk3y · 2017-06-14 06:36 · Score: 1

Trump isn't getting impeached....until 2018.
Re:Educated population by phantomfive · 2017-06-14 06:59 · Score: 1

bless their water to change it's molecular structure to be happier,
Really??

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Educated population by EndlessNameless · 2017-06-14 07:55 · Score: 1

Dogma is a plague that retards progress. It is what organized religion and organized political parties devolve into. But dogma != religion.
Almost, but not quite right. Dogma is any essential or inarguable belief. All religions have dogma.
Some religions have less dogma than others. But, in general: spirituality + dogma = religion. Every religion has both of those things at a minimum.

--

---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Re:Educated population by sexconker · 2017-06-14 08:50 · Score: 1

FYI, you don't need a comma after "Religious Reich".
Just sayin'
You don't need one after "FYI", either. Yet it was helpful, wasn't it? Also, have a few of these - ............. - you seem to be without.
Re:Educated population by Gavagai80 · 2017-06-14 09:17 · Score: 1

The good thing about hippies is they're nowhere near as effective at organizing themselves as the religious right. They make a fuss, but they've managed very little influence on public policy.

--
This space intentionally left blank
Re:Educated population by drinkypoo · 2017-06-14 10:34 · Score: 1

Nothing about my religion makes me act in a way that retards progress.
Bully for you for being more advanced than the average religious person. If you do not meddle in other people's affairs because you find their lifestyle offensive, then I commend you. However, believing in religion still encourages you to believe in things for no reason other than that you want them to be true because you find them comforting and someone you want to continue to respect got you hooked on the ideas to begin with. This is the opposite of science. The notion that this is somehow justifiable is what leads to the kind of thinking that MobyDisk was complaining about in a sibling to your comment.

I tend to blame Paul for sowing the early seeds of what we have today.
Who- or whatever Saul really was, that is certainly the source of most of the really problematic stuff in the bible.

As an aside, I think most Americans would be horrified if they ever actually read the bible. It is distinctly "unamerican."
People can always apologize away the parts of the bible they don't like, and the parts that people didn't like hundreds of years ago just didn't even make the cut and didn't get stuck in there for future Christians to discover because they were inconvenient for the powers that were at the time — some of which still are. And indeed, there are whole books of the bible which are apologia for other books of the bible, just in case you need help finding good apologies. So it's really quite irrelevant if people read the bible. They'll always just claim that their faith only uses the good parts and that somewhere between most and all of those other parts are not really meant to be taken literally.
With religion, you can always invent another excuse. And with the bible in particular, you can find a passage to justify basically any action, if you are willing to claim divine revelation.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Educated population by kelanos · 2017-06-14 11:23 · Score: 1

Wow why are you so crazed to attack religion?
What's wrong with hope? Do you know any other sort of institution that's selling it? Have you ever lived an impoverished life? Do you know nothing of the value of community?
You seem to be conflating the ideal of religion with some particular religions that you have experienced. You are probably one of the retards of which you speak, indoctrinated into the Atheist Religion lead by Bishop Dawkins or whatever soulless producer of drivel you read.
Seriously, your disregard for the schools for the metaphysical (religion) is absurd. How dare you look down on others?
An example you should attend is that of Isaac Newton, whose work was based in the metaphysical, even the occult, and who was a devoted Christian.
What have you ever done besides regurgitate your brainwashed leftist script? Your comments on this site are horrible.
Re:Educated population by david_thornley · 2017-06-15 10:31 · Score: 1

We do have awesome government schools. We also have really, really crappy ones. There are a minimum of fifty different public school systems in the country, and the quality varies wildly, even within school systems.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Educated population by david_thornley · 2017-06-15 10:40 · Score: 1

The Democrats certainly could take a commanding lead in the House, depending on how things go, but the Senators up for re-election are heavily Democratic. If the Democrats sweep the Senator races, which is unlikely, they wouldn't have any sort of supermajority.
The House can impeach a President by majority vote. After that, the Chief Justice presides over a trial by the Senate, and it takes two-thirds of the Senate to remove the President from office. That isn't going to happen without a lot of Republican Senators voting to convict, and if that happens there's no reason impeachment and conviction can't happen sooner than the mid-terms.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Re: Only the commercial monetization is new by fubarrr · 2017-06-14 01:16 · Score: 1

Yes, it was at around that time when the new wave of politicians whom you can call "ultrapopulists" appeared.

The only thing different nowadays from say mid-to-late nineties is that the this "ultrapopulism" device was wrestled out of the hands of your usual "mainstream" parties.

How much would it cost... by RyanFenton · 2017-06-14 01:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

...To fund proper investigative journalistic institutions, non-commercial like the BBC, that could identify, shame, and counter such efforts?

The journalistic system we have today is basically a self-standing set of dominoes - basically competing to generate attention-getting emotions - looking for any excuse to re-trigger their sequence. It isn't new - yellow journalism has an amazing and lengthy history, but increasingly tabloid coverage is the only news for most folks.

It's not a moralistic thing that's the problem here - it's informational vulnerability. Like folks growing up in a 'company town' or a cult, it becomes statistically likely that without a path to a wider source of information, that folks will be unable to break out of objectively wrong information and will become willing victims to pure exploitation.

Even here, lots of folks have given up on the idea of pursuing truth as a societal good. Down that path lies a deep stagnation and victimhood.

Ryan Fenton

Re:How much would it cost... by alvinrod · 2017-06-14 01:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's a bit dangerous to create a reliance on large institutions that can easily be turned into the purveyors of fake news themselves. You can look at it with only good in mind, perhaps like the BBC and think that they're more good than bad, but you can just as easily get something like RT (Russia Today) which (from my own subjective perspective at least) seems to be a bit more slanted. I'd be remiss to give the state anything that could approach a monopoly on the news. If you create a power structure like that, eventually you'll find it filled with the kinds of people who want to abase and abuse it for their own ends.

As you point out, yellow journalism has been around forever in some form or another. I think that people just haven't quite learned to understand the internet or online media yet, as I suspect that a lot of the people who get duped by so-called "fake news" are the same who would scoff at someone believing something that they read from the National Enquirer or any of those other tabloid rags that line the check-out aisles in grocery stores. It's a bit like exposing a population to a new disease, or a new strain of an old one. We haven't developed a resistance or defenses against this at a societal or cultural level yet, so it seems like a big problem.

Fundamentally, I think the problem is rooted at a deeper level of human nature. We prefer to seek out things which confirm our beliefs rather than challenge them, and this cuts across more than just the news. Without taking time to train ourselves not to fall into those cognitive traps, we're never going to solve the problem. Seeking the truth is a difficult task, not only because the path is fraught with peril, but because when you get to the end, the truth is often incredibly ugly. How often are people so disgusted by what they discovered that they shut it away completely or only let out parts of it?
Re:How much would it cost... by nine-times · 2017-06-14 01:59 · Score: 3, Informative

How much would it cost to fund proper investigative journalistic institutions, non-commercial like the BBC, that could identify, shame, and counter such efforts?
There isn't really any amount of money that could fund enough journalism to counter propaganda. And really, let's call it "propaganda". The term "fake news" makes it sound trivial, and diminishes the danger this stuff represents. "Propaganda" has become a dirty word because it conjures images of authoritarian dictators performing mass manipulation, but the thing is, that's exactly what's going on.
You're never going to completely counter the ability to disseminate propaganda. There will always be some people who believe it. And no amount of journalism alone can counter it.
If you want to counter is as thoroughly as possible, first, you need a good education system. People need to know what propaganda is, and how it works, so they can spot it. They need people to know enough history to understand when and how propaganda has been used in the past, and for what reasons. You need people to know enough logic to spot poor arguments, and enough philosophy to understand why a logically consistent argument might still lead you astray. You need this kind of education to be widespread and free, so that as many people receive it as possible.
Then, yes, you also need journalistic institutions that at least attempt to be unbiased. They also need to be set up to avoid turning into tabloids, chasing the most sensationalistic stories rather than informing the public. You need extensive fact-checking, in order to make sure everything said is as accurate as possible. The information they provide needs to be open and freely available. I'm not sure how you accomplish those things.
You also need good communications infrastructure, so people can talk to each other. Here's where it gets hard: You need public forums that also attempt to be free of bias and sensationalism. Computerized social networks, which are becoming the popular public forums, aim to get their audience to feel the need to constantly review their feeds, and because of that, they're designed to elicit and promote controversy. Facebook and twitter may be the worst things ever to happen to public discourse.
Re:How much would it cost... by nine-times · 2017-06-14 02:02 · Score: 2

You're absolutely correct that the state should never be allowed to have anything resembling a monopoly on the news. However, that doesn't mean that public news sources can't be valuable, and relatively unbiased. I would say that, in my experience, the BBC, PBS, and NPR are all more reliable and unbiased the Fox, CNN, or MSNBC.
Re:How much would it cost... by RyanFenton · 2017-06-14 02:15 · Score: 1

---
>>It's a bit dangerous to create a reliance on large institutions that can easily be turned into the purveyors of fake news themselves.
---
Life is filled with reliance on others - that's not a conflict, but it means that we do owe it to ourselves to put reliable information ahead of commercial interests sometimes. Often, actually.
---
>>You can look at it with only good in mind, perhaps like the BBC and think that they're more good than bad, but you can just as easily get something like RT (Russia Today)...
---
But that's the thing - journalism isn't some unsolvable problem. It's a job that's just been handed to an almost purely commercial market in the US. We see with the BBC that it is POSSIBLE to create a space where actual journalism can be done beyond the scope of what is possible in the commercial space, without being propaganda.
Same story with healthcare - you can compare nations, and the outcomes change based on how they handle things, and sometimes you discover that the marketplace is not a very good place engage in things like medical care or a large portion of journalistic investigation. Sometimes you need to do real work on the basis of what works best, and costs society the least, not on what is profitable at every second.
Education is also important, along with other institutions - but without something standing outside of government to provide objective information, a healthy 'fourth estate', the whole system is much more vulnerable.
Oh, and for folks who insist that education is going down the drain, the Flynn Effect is still in full effect. Google it. The kids in general are still doing fine and are objectively doing better all the time, it's the 'adults' that are unable to manage things.
Ryan Fenton
Re:How much would it cost... by Nidi62 · 2017-06-14 02:35 · Score: 3, Interesting

...To fund proper investigative journalistic institutions, non-commercial like the BBC, that could identify, shame, and counter such efforts?
A lot, because no one would watch it. Take into account the 24 hour news cycle and its inherent need for filler content, the ability for people to access multiple outlets of news in search of one that reflects their own beliefs or bias, and the fact that news outlets are competing with reality TV or entertainment mags or sporting events for eyeballs and entertainment, and you see that news outlets almost have to run news that is "exciting"-blood, bombs, disasters, suffering, etc. Face it, traditional journalism and reporting is boring. Important, but boring. And in this day and age, boring simply can't survive. Especially when the driving force behind operating a news outlet is income based on advertising. Which is why it would cost a lot, because a news outlet producing traditional journalism would require a benefactor with very big pockets to survive.

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Re:How much would it cost... by PoopJuggler · 2017-06-14 02:36 · Score: 1

You make a good point, but "propaganda" can also just be "truth with a spin", whereas fake news is more literally fake. So I don't think they're the same thing _necessarily_, but are definitely used for the same nefarious purposes.
Re:How much would it cost... by phantomfive · 2017-06-14 07:01 · Score: 1

If you want to counter is as thoroughly as possible, first, you need a good education system. People need to know what propaganda is, and how it works, so they can spot it.
Yeah. Most people I see spreading propaganda aren't paid, they're average citizens.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:How much would it cost... by nine-times · 2017-06-14 08:22 · Score: 1

That's an interesting point. I'm not sure I agree that it's a very meaningful distinction. In my mind, when "propaganda" is "truth with a spin", the spin needs to be something that misleads or manipulates, which makes it "fake" in some sense. Meanwhile, a lot of lies and false stories have some element of truth in order to make them more believable.
The reason I made a point of calling it "propaganda" is that, to me, calling it "fake news" makes it sound... not very nefarious. I'm not sure why. Maybe because the terminology is so simple, the kind of language a child might use. It makes it sound like the fake news could be playful shenanigans, or an innocent mistake. It seems like anything that isn't 100% accurate could be labelled "fake news", even if it was an honest attempt to figure out what happened, based on the available information.
Propaganda, on the other hand, makes me think of figures like Stalin and Hitler. Not everything they said was a lie, but they intersperse lies with truth in order to achieve the desired effect of manipulating the populace. The term went out of style following WW2 because it had been associated with those kinds of regimes.
But I think, to a large extent, we're just sharing our personal connotations of the words, not really arguing about definitions.

Au contraire...way more was spent by PortHaven · 2017-06-14 01:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Just look at all the articles published by Huffington Post and CNN.com, so many were patently false. Millions was spent publishing fake news to benefit Hillary.

This isn't talked about, because it was in the Democrats' favor.

Re:Au contraire...way more was spent by XxtraLarGe · 2017-06-14 01:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

Just look at all the articles published by Huffington Post and CNN.com, so many were patently false. Millions was spent publishing fake news to benefit Hillary.
On the bright side, CNN is now launching a real news site for those interested in things that actually happened.

--
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Re:Au contraire...way more was spent by ckatko · 2017-06-14 01:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

It wasn't talked about because of the insane amount of existing bias in the media. Just like the media curiously didn't cover the 1996 Telecommunications Act--Thanks, Bill Clinton!--that allowed the media to go from over 200 owning companies to 5. 5 companies control 90% of all information the typical US citizen sees. That should scare anyone. It's easy as hell to buy off 5 companies.
Imagine if Facebook was the only company that anyone got their news from. Would you magically start trusting Facebook to give people fair news? We're already heading that direction.
Likewise, why has Bill Clinton not had wall-to-wall news coverage? Bill COSBY probably raped women and he got wall-to-wall coverage. But Bill CLINTON also raped tons of women in the same way, in the same numbers (or higher), and nobody talks about it. There's no wall-to-wall coverage. There's no investigative journalism prying deeper and deeper. Nope.
Which means we're left with two options: The media is allied with/owned by the Clintons and Cosby (who criticizes Black America) is a threat. Or, the media is racist as fuck and defends a powerful white man, and goes balls-to-the-wall to throw a successful black man in jail the same way they hunted Michael Jackson without proof. (Fun fact: If you actually read up on MJ, you'll find a complete lack of plausible case against him.)
Re:Au contraire...way more was spent by davide+marney · 2017-06-14 01:46 · Score: 1

Ah, the Babylon Bee. A fine source of wry humor.

--
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Re:Au contraire...way more was spent by gnick · 2017-06-14 02:24 · Score: 1

Snopes

--
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Re:Au contraire...way more was spent by meta-monkey · 2017-06-14 03:37 · Score: 1

You don't have to "buy off" the 5 companies. The 5 companies all have similar interests. They're going to publish things that promote the interests of the conglomerates and their subsidiaries (global capitalism, mass immigration) and ignore or discredit anything that goes against their interests (populism, nationalism).

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:Au contraire...way more was spent by meta-monkey · 2017-06-14 03:38 · Score: 1

How do you type with your head crammed that far up your ass?

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:Au contraire...way more was spent by PortHaven · 2017-06-14 05:13 · Score: 1

There are plenty... go google.
Remember the hundreds of articles posted that claimed "Trump said soldiers commit suicide because they're weak." Which was a vast misportrayal of what he actually said if you watch the actual youtube video.
Let alone all the BS articles for Hillary while Bernie was kicking her butt. And the likes of CNN didn't even include pictures of Bernie in results he dominated.
So yes, it is true.
Re:Au contraire...way more was spent by gnick · 2017-06-14 06:13 · Score: 1

There are plenty... go google.
I checked here. I see nothing that qualifies as CNN posting "patently false" articles. Searching Google for false stories from CNN returns garbage. Note that I'm not saying that CNN is something special - I'm saying that the MSM rarely promotes stories that they just make up. You can find all kinds of crap at the fringe, but major outlets like CNN and Fox News don't make a habit of just making shit up.

--
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Re:Au contraire...way more was spent by iMadeGhostzilla · 2017-06-14 07:19 · Score: 1

But it was more subtle. Sometimes!
Seriously though the only way around it is to wait for people to realize than any news they read has only a certain probability of partially or fully matching what actually happened. (Strictly speaking that's true with any information entering your mind from the outside.) And that you need to gather multiple sources and give it time to see if the news item remains before you can call it "likely true". Sort of deep learning if you will -- the statistical processes involved are key.
As a proxy for that I usually check the headlines on google news (mostly featuring WaPo, NYT, CNN etc.), then I check Fox news, what's shown on both I see it as probably true, and if it stays for a while it's probably important.
Re:Au contraire...way more was spent by hyades1 · 2017-06-14 10:28 · Score: 1

Since you're an AC, I feel perfectly free to ask you to please take that cock out of your mouth when you're typing nonsense.

--
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Re:Au contraire...way more was spent by hyades1 · 2017-06-14 10:29 · Score: 1

I see the right wing trollocracy has managed to accumulate enough mod points to elevate this bullshit to a status it certainly doesn't deserve.

--
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Re:Au contraire...way more was spent by david_thornley · 2017-06-15 10:48 · Score: 1

Did Bill Clinton rape tons of women? I've seen suggestive but not decisive evidence that he raped one, but that doesn't stop you from stating that he was a prolific rapist as if it were known fact while giving Cosby the benefit of the doubt.
You also thank Clinton for an act that was passed by a Republican Congress. Methinks you're showing a lot of bias here.
Another thing about the Cosby coverage vs. the Clinton coverage is that it's pretty well known that Bill Clinton is a sleazeball, but Cosby had a reputation as been a good person up until the rape accusations started piling up. "Clean wholesome person rapes multiple women" attracts more eyeballs than "Morally icky person rapes a woman".

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Re:But trump told me by gnick · 2017-06-14 01:35 · Score: 4, Funny

Mr trumpy told me that this itself is a #fakenews and could never happen in soviet america!!!

It could never happen in Soviet America. Never. But if it did, from everything I'm told, there would be nothing wrong with that.

--
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.

Is FAKE NEWS the new advertising? by petes_PoV · 2017-06-14 01:36 · Score: 1

So you can buy a campaign to alter people's opinion. To change their views on something. To influence the actions they would take and the decisions they make.

OK, How is that different from trying to sell someone washing powder. It washes cleaner (no proof required). it makes your whites whiter - but we don't demand a reference or scientific study for the test that proved it.

We just accept that most of the stuff we will be told is bullshit. Whether it is about a new car (more energy efficient, chick magnet, safer, cheaper to run, higher resale value) or a political campaign (will make you richer / safer, will ensure jobs, signals virtue).

We used to have a healthy skepticism for politics - riddle: How can you tell when a politician is lying? Their lips move. What has made us so much more gullible or easy to influence? Have we become used to living in a more truthful society? Are we just looking for a set of information (true or not) that supports our preconceived ideas? Do we associate good looks with honesty? Are we so desperate for someone we can trust that we start to believe that TV stars offer real, honest, impartial advice?

Where should we draw the line between disbelief and nihilism? Is there a line to be drawn?

--
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons

Re:Is FAKE NEWS the new advertising? by moeinvt · 2017-06-14 02:11 · Score: 2

"Are we just looking for a set of information (true or not) that supports our preconceived ideas?"
Yes. Everybody is doing that. We all see the world through our own reality tunnel & are seeking information to validate our ideas while discounting anything that might contradict them. It's very easy to spot this in others, but extremely difficult to detect in ourselves. There's no real way to turn it off either. The best we can do is be aware that our minds are operating this way & from time to time, try to see the world through some other person's reality tunnel.
Re:Is FAKE NEWS the new advertising? by pastafazou · 2017-06-14 02:16 · Score: 2

It's funny, in primary school they teach the kids about Nazi Germany's use of propaganda to coerce public opinion, but they then leave it at that, like propaganda died when Germany was defeated. Propaganda is alive and well in our modern media.
Re:Is FAKE NEWS the new advertising? by PoopJuggler · 2017-06-14 02:40 · Score: 2

We just accept that most of the stuff we will be told is bullshit
I wouldn't say we accept it flat out, otherwise there wouldn't be any truth-in-advertising laws. But yeah, we tolerate mass manipulation far too readily. Probably because we're all chained to the same capitalistic and exploitive yoke.
Re:Is FAKE NEWS the new advertising? by meta-monkey · 2017-06-14 03:46 · Score: 1

I wish everyone understood this. Humans are always biased. They have to be. All living things are biased towards their own goals. Perception is based on goals and obstacles, not "truth." It takes massive effort to even attempt to overcome one's own biases. If you think you're not biased, you're probably the most biased.
When it comes to media, at least one technique for trying to suss out some kind of truth is to consume multiple different news sources while understanding the biases of the people producing that news. Read Breitbart, and MSNBC, and HuffPo, always keeping in mind these are biased humans, just like you, presenting their biased worldview. Don't take any of them as "true."

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.

Re:Only the commercial monetization is new by nomadic · 2017-06-14 01:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

"I can respect that these people are wrestling this power from the hands of media conglomerates and making it a commercial service."

Yes, people subverting the course of democracy for personal profit should be respected.

Fake Slashdot by Train0987 · 2017-06-14 01:42 · Score: 1

How much did it cost to get this nonsense posted on Slashdot?

Re: Only the commercial monetization is new by Kierthos · 2017-06-14 01:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm sure it's not the only reason for U.S. politics becoming so partisan, but the Soviet Union fell in '90-91. Before that, the Democrats and Republicans may have not gotten along, but they had the the "common enemy" of the USSR.

Once it was out of the picture.... without that common enemy, it was inevitable that they would turn on each other, more or less. Then throw in that news programs are ratings driven these days, and there's no incentive for the news to calm things down.

--
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.

Re:Only the commercial monetization is new by Kiuas · 2017-06-14 01:47 · Score: 5, Informative

You're right that the concept of a propagandist is not new at all.

However you're incorrect in saying that only the commercial monetization is new. The social media technologies in use globally bring an entirely new dimension to propaganda, namely: customization and targeting of the message on a user-by-user basis. No longer do you have to think about crafting propaganda which will appeal to a broad base of people, you can write several different angles on the same story and disseminate them so that different versions are only visible to a target audience that's most likely to buy that version of it. Quoting the report itself:

We didn’t directly interact with Boryou’s sales agents, but we can understand their pricing models by measuring it against a comparable service, the Yunjing Public Opinion Monitoring System, Yunjing's service monitors news sites (Chinese and English), forums, blogs, search engines, and regional sites and applications like Weibo, a popular Chinese microblogging site, and WeChat, China’s prevalent social media platform. It claims to be capable of analyzing Weibo in order to find or create “opinion leaders” and provide customers information that include their region as well aspost, repost, and comment count.
Yunjing charges its customer per keyword. The price ranges from RMB 12,800 ($1,850) for 10 keywords to RMB 28,800 ($4,175) for 20 keywords. The service comes packaged with analytics reports for WeChat, Weibo, and special or customer-defined topics.

This level of segmentation of your target audience would never have been possible in the age of tv or newspaper lead propaganda. Also crowdsourcing has now entered the game:

What’s notable in the Russian underground, however, is how it leverages crowdsourcing to manipulate public opinion. It works just like any crowdsourcing effort would—funding projects by sourcing them from the contributions of a sizeable number of people—except that the contributions amount to the promotion
of profiles, subscribers, and likes. By adopting this model, the barriers of entry for disseminating fake news and manipulating public opinion are practically lowered to completing tasks and promoting other content with little to no monetary capital involved.
Case in point: VTope—a multiparty, online collaborative system with a throng of over 2,000,000 mostly real users and support for platforms such as VKontakte (VK), Ok.com, YouTube, Twitter, Ask.fm, Facebook, and Instagram. Its workflow comprises implementing tasks (liking or following a profile or a post, joining a
group, etc.) that incentivizes users with points, which they can resell or use for self-promotion. VTope’s service is initially free of charge, and participants can earn points by completing tasks. Points can also be purchased as coupons that can be bought on-site, but they are also widely available in underground marketplaces where they're often cheaper than on VTope. For instance, a coupon worth 10,000 points is sold for RUB 1,190 ($21) on VTope, and RUB 500 ($8) in the underground. A coupon worth 50,000 points costs RUB 3,490 ($62). - -
like4u takes crowdsourcing up another notch by touting its capability to control the speed of promotion and set up time limits for tasks, which helps avoid bans from the media. Such tasks per time limits come in a choice of 5 or 15 minutes, or 1, 4, or 24 hours. like4u’s customers can also decide between using dedicated bots or real people for their promotional efforts. It similarly uses a point system, which can be bought from RUB 11 to RUB 4,500. ($0.2 to $80).

And so on. The game is changing rapidly because traditional news channels are no longer the primary channel of information delivery to most people. If you can get a piece of propaganda out on social media before commentary hits on the news, you have a huge advantgae: you've already primed the targeted audience with preconceptions

--
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead

Re:Only the commercial monetization is new by Lord+Kano · 2017-06-14 01:50 · Score: 2

It has always been done for the acquisition of money or power. This just makes it more accessible.

Instead of it being the exclusive domain of 7-8 large, international companies or nation-states, the game is open to 6 figure level players.

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano

good grief, Slashdot, cut the crap by ooloorie · 2017-06-14 01:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

The page you point to talks about campaigns on VK, a Russian social media site. And even then, the article just provides fact free assertions like "According to researchers, the typical clients of such services are interested in warping the way others perceive reality. These services are usually used for character assassination, swaying political trends, or creating fake celebrities."

Yahoo! comments for Dummies by frazamatazzle · 2017-06-14 01:57 · Score: 1

This article's TLDR

Citation needed [Re:Au contraire...way more wa...] by XXongo · 2017-06-14 02:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

Just look at all the articles published by Huffington Post and CNN.com, so many were patently false. Millions was spent publishing fake news to benefit Hillary.

I'm not at all a fan of the Huff, but if you're going to state that they and CNN publish articles that are "patently false," some documentation showing specific examples (and more than one example: you said "articles") would be needed. Right now, my summary of what you said is "they published stories that don't support my pre-existing opinion, therefore I will state that these articles are patently false."

Or, to quote wikipedia: citation needed.

Not the actual cost by poity · 2017-06-14 02:03 · Score: 1

American journalists do it on their company's dime.

--
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll

Only if mainsteam parrots it by RogueWarrior65 · 2017-06-14 02:13 · Score: 1

Fake news generated online only works if the mainstream media picks it up and reports it for a week. Most people with minimal critical thinking skills will dismiss a fake news story if it only exists online. But their confirmation bias will give it credence if the mainstream media talks about it. Even if the headline turns out to be B.S., confirmation bias will cause people to think, "Well, this may be false but there's probably something there."

Re:Only if mainsteam parrots it by XxtraLarGe · 2017-06-14 02:32 · Score: 1

Fake news generated online only works if the mainstream media picks it up and reports it for a week. Most people with minimal critical thinking skills will dismiss a fake news story if it only exists online.
During the last election, I had a few friends that were always sharing fake "Hillary Clinton Going to Prison Soon!" type stories almost every day from siteyouneverheardof.com. They might have been gullible enough to believe it, or had hope that it would be true, but even in the absence of these kinds of fake news stories, none of those guys would have ever voted for Clinton.

--
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Re:Only if mainsteam parrots it by Gilgaron · 2017-06-14 02:46 · Score: 1

Oh no, I had relatives vehemently defending the authenticity of satire articles on Facebook last election, let alone the dross propaganda articles. These people have already dismissed the mainstream media.

Re:Only the commercial monetization is new by judoguy · 2017-06-14 02:15 · Score: 1

Yes, people subverting the course of democracy for personal profit should be respected.

Democracy is messy. Far better that some people add noise to the signal than all the corporate controlled media giants cramming their indoctrination down our throats unopposed.

--
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.

Sounds like a pretty good ROI by damn_registrars · 2017-06-14 02:15 · Score: 1

The people who are most interested in influencing elections this way would not see $400k as a large investment and could potentially recoup that in a single favorable tax bill.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.

Re:How much did Trump's false flag... by damn_registrars · 2017-06-14 02:19 · Score: 1

Ammo is cheap and plentiful right now, so likely not much. Stores that sell guns and ammo are actually cursing the GOP having control of power right now as it drives sales down since they can't scare potential customers into thinking the government is going to take the guns away.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.

Re: Only the commercial monetization is new by rickb928 · 2017-06-14 02:24 · Score: 1

"Before that, the Democrats and Republicans may have not gotten along, but they had the the "common enemy" of the USSR."

Assumes facts not in evidence.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.

Re:Only the commercial monetization is new by Trailer+Trash · 2017-06-14 02:31 · Score: 1

"I can respect that these people are wrestling this power from the hands of media conglomerates and making it a commercial service."

Yes, people subverting the course of democracy for personal profit should be respected.

Agreed, but how does that differ from major news organizations doing the same? Fake news isn't new - look at Dan Rather's downfall. Are we suggesting he didn't do it for personal profit?

--
Do you have ESP?

Re: But trump told me by PoopJuggler · 2017-06-14 02:32 · Score: 2

How are you supposed to draw your own conclusions when all your facts are wrong?

Re: But trump told me by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-14 02:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

Several problems with your statement. The number one person discussing fake news more than anyone was born decades before millenials or even baby boomers for that matter. And a bunch of people who fall for and believe most of the fake news out there voted for him.

If all news is fake how and who can do research to uncover the real facts and truth?

Finally. Very few people, probably less than 0.5% go out of their way to draw their own conclusions. Most find a news source that strikes with them and they believe without hesitation what that news source tells them.

There is a real problem with fake news. People believe it. This isn't the onion but someone actually telling bold face lies and people believe it.

In other words, this is Modern Day Propaganda by zifn4b · 2017-06-14 03:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

For those who are history buffs, you know very well the history of political propaganda. So really, this is nothing new. The only thing that's changed is the medium. Instead of newspapers and posters, social media is now the primary medium. I think most likely many of us forgot about propaganda because we stopped reading newspapers and watching network television in favor of streaming media, websites and social media. The propaganda spinsters finally caught on and are using social media and now we're aware of it all over again. It's the new old thing.

--
We'll make great pets

Re:How much did Trump's false flag... by damn_registrars · 2017-06-14 03:23 · Score: 2

GOP having control of power right now as it drives sales down since they can't scare potential customers into thinking the government is going to take the guns away.

No, certain GOP hating liberals have already routed around that problem. Now they are shooting Republicans for being republicans.

The link you gave does not offer any political affiliation for the shooter. Yeah, he shot a GOP congress-critter but does that mean he did it because he was himself to the left of said congress-critter? For all we know the shooter could have been an angry tea partier who felt the congress-critter was too much of a compromising centrist.

After all, if the liberals really want to have guns taken away, why would they be carrying them around? Shooting someone from the party that is most associated with more guns in public would not be a useful step towards gun restriction.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.

all news is propaganda by p51d007 · 2017-06-14 03:25 · Score: 1

If you ask me. Fox, propaganda on the right Msnbc/CNN etc..propaganda on the left. New "bias" depends on where you stand. What's to the left for some, is to the right, for others.

Re:Citation needed [Re:Au contraire...way more wa. by meta-monkey · 2017-06-14 03:40 · Score: 1, Insightful

They do this kind of shit all the time. If you're watching CNN for some other reason than to see what they're lying and spinning this time to suit their agenda then bless your little heart.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.

Aren't the CIA etc. offering the same services? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-14 03:40 · Score: 1

Even the U.S. navy advertised openly in papers a few years back to hire people for exactly these social propaganda campaigns. The article headline almost suggests that the U.S. has never ever done anything like this. Funny.

Re:Aren't the CIA etc. offering the same services? by AHuxley · 2017-06-14 10:22 · Score: 1

Yes AC with Operation Mockingbird
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Mighty Wurlitzer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The US changes to the Smith–Mundt Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...–Mundt_Act
Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand (APRIL 20, 2008)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04...

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"

Re:How much did Trump's false flag... by Topwiz · 2017-06-14 05:03 · Score: 1

His Facebook/Twitter identify him as a big Bernie fan.

"Fake news" the scapegoat by kelanos · 2017-06-14 05:06 · Score: 1

When in reality the problem is the population is too stupid for democracy to work.

No one is forcing people to believe fake news....or are they? Snakes in the education system? Or are we going to ride the myth that it's really hard to provide people with the basics they need to concentrate on developing their minds while we engage in worldwide military conquest with hardly a few years' rest between campaigns?

People are being kept stupid so certain people can own our supposed democracy.

NO, YOU ARE MISTAKEN by PortHaven · 2017-06-14 05:10 · Score: 1

We had the one and only election not meddled with by foreign entities. Where as we have meddled in the foreign elections of both allies and rivals. We now are experiencing a tiny tiny tiny miniscule dose of our own medicine - and whiny like a baby.

Dang, by PortHaven · 2017-06-14 05:10 · Score: 1

I'd be happy to have been paid 50 cents for that post.

Re:Dang, by PortHaven · 2017-06-15 05:52 · Score: 1

Perhaps because I don't have time to repeatedly do so. It is NOT my responsibility to educate your ignorance.
Donald Trump spoke to veterans. The media published hundreds of articles touting that Donald Trump said soldiers commit suicide because they are weak. Just a few examples below, and those are much milder than many headlines I saw.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/04/...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/03/...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Except those media outlets blatantly took Trump's words out of context and implied statements that he did not make. You can also go to YouTube.com and find the actual video. In fact, surprisingly, that particular video is perhaps the most Presidential moment I have ever seen of Trump.
http://www.snopes.com/donald-t...
So there you got, there is a citation for you. Now give me your address so I can send you a pro-rated bill for my time your lazy ignorant buttface wasted. And THIS is why I don't cite every time. Cause we have Google. Use it....

BULLSHIT by PortHaven · 2017-06-14 05:15 · Score: 1

STUPID, YES YOU ^^^

You who are dumb enough to believe it is anything liberal vs conservative, Democrat vs Republican, rather than powers-that-be versus the masses.

Many of the BS articles were in favor of the corporate elitist Hillary and against Bernie Sanders.

Re:Citation needed [Re:Au contraire...way more wa. by PortHaven · 2017-06-14 05:17 · Score: 1

Go read the articles, and then watch the videos on youtube.com

Case in point "Trump says soldiers who commit suicide are weak", go watch the damn video.

Re: Only the commercial monetization is new by Straif · 2017-06-14 06:34 · Score: 1

Well except for that time Ted Kennedy actively attempted to get the Soviets to help the Dems against Reagan .

--
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!

CNN: horray for honesty by XXongo · 2017-06-14 07:06 · Score: 2

Here is an interesting commentary from Forbes about how to find non-fake journalism. The number one item in his list of criteria for how to tell whether a site is legitimate news source: "If a reporter gets facts in a story wrong, will the news outlet investigate a complaint and publish a correction?"

After youtube played the clip you posted, the very next clip loaded was the apology from CNN and the correction. A google search for "Carol Costello Apologizes On Air for CNN Lying About Milwaukee Riot Situation" gives me 95,200 hits.

So, to the contrary. I will cite this next time I am asked for an example of how CNN is NOT fake news.

Search Results
Carol Costello Apologizes On Air for CNN Lying About Milwaukee Riot ... Video for Carol Costello Apologizes On Air for CNN Lying About Milwaukee Riot Situation 16:25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Carol Costello of CNN apologized on air for her network lying about the Milwaukee situation via a quick on ... WATCH: CNN Apologizes For Lying About Milwaukee Riots (VIDEO ... https://www.conservativeoutfit... News
Aug 18, 2016 - CNN just apologized on air for not showing the full clip of the ... CNN's Carol Costello said she "regrets the second part of the statement was not included" in the report. .@CarolCNN apologizes for not airing full clip of Milwaukee victim's sister calling .... Put yourself in her situation, your house just got shot at. CNN anchor offers apology for shortening of Milwaukee clip – CNN ... https://cnncommentary.com/.../......
Aug 17, 2016 - On Wednesday morning, CNN Newsroom anchor Carol Costello offered ... shot by an officer on Saturday afternoon, which triggered riots in the city. ... On-air, Costello apologized, “I want to take a moment to clarify something from Monday. ... CNN is a lying piece of crap network that is not a good place to get ... www.topbuzzapp.com/article/i6320193922531639812?app_id=1106
CNN Sorry For Editing Clip Of Milwaukee Victim's Sister Calling For ... https://www.buzzfeed.com/.../c...
Aug 17, 2016 - CNN Sorry For Editing Clip Of Milwaukee Victim's Sister Calling For Violence ... an officer on Saturday afternoon, triggering destructive riots in the city. ... On Wednesday, anchor Carol Costello issued a rare on-air apology .... You're one of the few people I've spoken with, who sees both sides of the situation. Costello Apologizes For Deceptive Report About Milwaukee | The ... dailycaller.com/.../cnn-anchor-grovels-to-audience-after-allowing-deceptive-report-ab...
Aug 17, 2016 - CNN anchor Carol Costello apologized on Wednesday for allowing a deceptive report about the violence in Milwaukee to air that characterized ... Carol Costello Apologizes On Air for CNN Lying About ... - Pinterest https://www.pinterest.com/pin/...
Carol Costello Apologizes On Air for CNN Lying About Milwau

Re:HeatStreet Anyone? by sexconker · 2017-06-14 09:08 · Score: 1

Yeah - Fake news for Hillary was alive and well during the election and whether Facebook was manipulated into Trending the shite, or whether they were knowingly disseminating it would be an interesting thing to know...

How is this even a question? We already know they were actively influencing trending headlines for Hillary. The first denied any manipulation of the automated system, then they admitted that they needed better control of and standards for their human team that manipulates the automated system, then they began their "War on Fake News", which has done nothing but disseminate more fake news and label wrongthink as "fake".

They'd have a much easier time of it if they just said "Yes, we influence it. Yes, we're biased just as anyone else is.". What will people do? Leave Facebook? Nope. They'll whine about it for a little bit then continue engaging in mass stupidity.

Re: Only the commercial monetization is new by rickb928 · 2017-06-14 11:41 · Score: 1

That's inconvenient.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.

Re:Only the commercial monetization is new by Agripa · 2017-06-15 05:12 · Score: 1

"I can respect that these people are wrestling this power from the hands of media conglomerates and making it a commercial service."

Yes, people subverting the course of democracy for personal profit should be respected.

Like Democrats and Republicans?

Slashdot Mirror

A 12-Month Campaign of Fake News To Influence Elections Costs $400K, Says Report (bleepingcomputer.com)

94 of 175 comments (clear)