Fake News 'Crowding Out' Real News (bbc.co.uk)

The volume of disinformation on the internet is growing so big that it is starting to crowd out real news, the Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee chairman has said. From a report: Tory MP Damian Collins said people struggle to identify "fake news." MPs in their committee report [PDF] said the issue threatens democracy and called for tougher social network regulation. The government said it plans to introduce a requirement for electoral adverts to have a "digital imprint". This would mean that all political communications carried online would need to clearly identify who they were published by. Labour said the government "needs to wake up to the new challenges we face and finally update electoral laws". The report follows the Cambridge Analytica data scandal earlier this year. The London-based data analytics firms and tech giant Facebook were at the centre of a dispute over the harvesting and use of personal data - and whether it was used to influence the outcome of the US 2016 presidential election or the UK Brexit referendum.

Comments

Starting?

[s_p_oneil]

Starting? I think that boat sailed (and probably sank) years ago.

Re:Starting?

[tsqr]

Starting? I think that boat sailed (and probably sank) years ago.

Indeed. The National Enquirer was founded in 1926. But then, it's not run by Russian agents (afaik), so maybe it doesn't count.

Re:Starting?

[racermd]

The difference I see today vs. yesteryear is that the populace at-large is doing less critical thinking about how news should be ingested. That is, asking the following questions: Who is writing it? Why are they writing it? Is it to inform or entertain (or both)? What viewpoint are they trying to convey and why is that viewpoint important from the perspective of the author? How is it important to you as the reader/viewer?

Picking up on the objective of the author was one of the little details that was stressed for a short period when I was in high school (more than half my life ago... wow, I feel old). I think my classes covered that subject for all of about two weeks before moving on to other test-able curricula.

We see a lot of stress on the "what" and not much on the "why" and "who." While we ought to trust the news outlets to do that job, certain "news" outlets absolutely have an agenda and either selectively choose to report certain facts to reinforce their message or omit certain facts that may undermine that message. Another tactic is presenting opinion as "fact" or outright lying. Knowing what kind of message the outlet is trying to convey is as important as the content they publish. Much of the "fake news" can easily be filtered out by the reader if they just apply those basic steps while seeking out reporting from multiple diverse sources and knowing how to properly independently fact-check sources.

I guess I'm saying that people, in general, may need a refresher on those critical thinking skills.

Re:Starting?

[Austerity Empowers]

The difference I see today vs. yesteryear is that the populace at-large is doing less critical thinking about how news should be ingested. That is, asking the following questions: Who is writing it? Why are they writing it? Is it to inform or entertain (or both)? What viewpoint are they trying to convey and why is that viewpoint important from the perspective of the author? How is it important to you as the reader/viewer?

Not to mention, what are the actual facts, what is the evidence, who did the gathering, who paid for it, when was it done, are there compounding issues, how was the data obtained, etc. If we cannot all agree on the facts, then the rest is just dildos and sandpaper. And I find we cannot agree on the facts.

Re:Starting?

[apoc.famine]

I know. A decade or more ago I was trolling with fake news pretty successfully. I was just doing it for laughs, however. I think the real issue is that we've learned to monetize outrage very effectively, which means there's a real market for it.

Now, you can even point to real, factual news like the fact that collusion isn't a crime and therefore Trump is indeed suffering from a witch-hunt and people won't believe it.

The fake news has gotten so deep that it's countering fake news with fake news about factual information. Fucking fake news all the way down.

Re:Starting?

[ConceptJunkie]

The difference I see today vs. yesteryear is that the populace at-large is doing less critical thinking about how news should be ingested.

I don't know what you mean by "yesteryear", but the number of sources for news is increasing exponentially. 50 years ago, you had the big 3 networks and the newspaper, and that was it. Regardless of what you thought about the source, your choices were extremely limited. I think it was about 50 years ago that widespread distrust of the media started to become a thing.

Nowadays the number of sources is orders of magnitude bigger and it's difficult or impossible to chase down everything you read to determine what facts are real and what aren't. Te duplicity in the media, whether it be some crank loner writing a blog or the most established news sources has also increased exponentially. Everything is propaganda and facts are nearly irrelevant with respect to the goals that practically every medium that claims to be news.

Perhaps people are thinking less critically, but those of us who do try to think critically (at least I am) are left thinking it's nearly impossible to sift through the noise to find the signal.

Re:Starting?

[LynnwoodRooster]

So then - what's the actual charge, what is the suspected crime? If it's not "collusion" - what is it?

Re:Starting?

[GameboyRMH]

Some form of criminal conspiracy. Educate yourself:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Re:Starting?

[MightyMartian]

Is it though? A few big outfits have their own journalism departments but wire services still do the bulk. Outfits like Breitbart and even Fox News largely wrap wire stories in layers of editorial. They're basically aggregators.

Re:Starting?

[evendiagram]

Similarly Trump isn't on trial for treason as a war with Russia is prerequisite. That won't stop talk about treasonous behavior.

Most journalists I read or podcasts I listen to are well aware that collusion isn't a crime. I don't think I've heard it described as such since 2016.

"It's not the crime, it's the cover-up"

Re:Starting?

[Nidi62]

Now, you can even point to real, factual news like the fact that collusion isn't a crime and therefore Trump is indeed suffering from a witch-hunt and people won't believe it.

Webster definition of collusion: "secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose; acting in collusion with the enemy

Webster definition of conspiracy: "1 : the act of conspiring together 2 a : an agreement among conspirators b : a group of conspirators"

Webster synonym of conspiracy: "2 a secret agreement or cooperation between two parties for an illegal or dishonest purpose a conspiracy among the leading manufacturers to fix prices

Synonyms of conspiracy

collusion,"

Last time I checked, conspiracy was an indictable crime. Since conspiracy is an actual legal term, there could be a risk of possible lawsuit by publicly accusing someone of conspiracy. Collusion is a little more nebulous and has no legal meaning, at least in this sense.

Re:Starting?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Too bad paywall... But some form of criminal conspiracy? Like conspiring with a presidential candidate to win a debate? So far, what we have are people being indicted for actions taken prior to the Trump campaign (and, in fact, often whilst working with strong Democrat lobbyist groups), or for "lying" about something that wasn't criminal, prohibited, or illegal in any way, shape or form (basically a process crime).

Now, there ARE several indictments of Russians, but given that the previous Administration told the cyber security chief to stand down about investigating any issues, well - it seems that the previous Administration should be held complicit to any Russian wrongdoing.

Re:Starting?

[nealric]

The problem here is that people cannot distinguish fact from opinion and cannot distinguished biased news from "fake news."

"Collusion is not a crime" is a factual statement. "Trump is indeed suffering from a witch-hunt" is an opinion. An opinion can't be "fake news" because an opinion does not have a truth value.

"Fake News" is a news story without any factual basis. Traditionally, it was used to apply to stories from media outlets that either don't actually exist or don't do any fact finding at all. They were stories that were calculated to generate clicks because they conformed to the bias of a particular political group.

Biased news is a separate phenomenon from fake news. A biased outlet (and all outlets have some bias) at least makes a good faith attempt to report statements with an affirmative truth value, but may omit relevant facts or over-emphasize others. Reporting that "Collusion is not a crime" is a true but biased statement. Yes, there is no crime called "collusion." However, the word "collusion" is simply the one that was seized upon to describe a variety of actions that may be crimes. So saying "collusion is not a crime" is like saying "killing someone is not a crime." Yes, it's possible to legally kill someone (in self-defense, for example), but there are a wide variety of crimes you could be charged with if you kill someone.

People have now weaponized the term "fake news" to apply to any news reported with a bias that they dislike. The danger is that this delegitimizes any opinion you don't like and serves to demonize your political opponents. There was a time when it was assumed that both political parties wanted the best for the country but just had different ideas of how to achieve it. Now, people think the other side is affirmatively evil. It's hard to actually solve problems with someone who thinks you are evil.

Re:Starting?

[Theaetetus]

The difference I see today vs. yesteryear is that the populace at-large is doing less critical thinking about how news should be ingested. That is, asking the following questions: Who is writing it? Why are they writing it? Is it to inform or entertain (or both)? What viewpoint are they trying to convey and why is that viewpoint important from the perspective of the author? How is it important to you as the reader/viewer?

Is that really any different than yesteryear? Classically, most people got their news from their local paper, which advanced their own biases. For example, I'm in Boston, where we have a liberal, pro-Democratic paper, the Boston Globe; and a conservative, pro-Republican paper, the Boston Herald, and their news and opinion articles are clearly slanted to advance the editors' viewpoint. Pre-Internet, the vast majority of people subscribed to only one of those papers. And while we'd like to believe that people were skilled at recognizing bias and thinking critically about the source, there's nothing to suggest that's true.

The Internet makes it easier to find diverse sources so as to not be in an echo chamber. If anything, I think the exposure of multiple slanted viewpoints and the current discussion of fake news is an indication that the populace-at-large today is doing more critical thinking than it used to.

Re:Starting?

[GameboyRMH]

I didn't hit any paywall, but I will still help you educate yourself:

Collusion is not a crime by itself. Here are the charges Mueller could be exploring.

Special counsel Robert Mueller in 2013. (Thew/Epa-Efe/Rex/Shutterstock/Thew/Epa-Efe/Rex/Shutterstock)
by Matt Zapotosky October 31, 2017 Email the author

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III fired his opening salvo this week, unsealing charges against three former Trump campaign aides thought to have engaged in a medley of wrongdoing.

The cases he revealed, legal analysts said, indicate he is pursuing an extensive probe that will explore both personal wrongdoing of those connected with President Trump and possible efforts campaign officials took to work with Russia to influence the 2016 election.

Collusion — the word Trump often uses to describe Mueller's case, even as he asserts such a thing never happened — is not itself a crime, and Mueller's team will probably have to sort through unseemly political dealings to determine whether a law was broken, legal analysts said. In his first public charges, though, Mueller offered a hint of the direction he might take.

Former campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, for example, pleaded guilty to making a false statement to FBI investigators who asked about his contacts with foreigners claiming to have high-level Russian connections.

Of particular note, he falsely described his interactions with a London-based professor claiming to have connections to high-level Russian officials who purportedly had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands of emails."

Papadopoulos said his interactions with the professor — thought to be Joseph Mifsud, the director of the London Academy of Diplomacy — occurred before he joined the campaign and did not amount to much. In fact, the professor told him about the emails in April 2016 — after his role on the campaign was made public — and the two were involved in extensive discussions about a possible meeting between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, according to Papadopoulos's plea agreement.

The conversation about emails is possibly a critical piece of evidence, legal analysts said. That is because one charge that investigators might try to substantiate against those higher in the Trump campaign is a conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

If Mueller can find evidence that members of Trump's team conspired in Russia's hacking effort — by directing it or aiding in another way — they might face criminal charges, legal analysts said. Papadopoulos's plea says that he discussed some of his efforts to broker a meeting with the Russians with other, more senior Trump campaign officials — although some seemed to treat him warily.

"There's a significant difference between the Russians having dirt and offering that dirt, and someone asking the Russians to commit an illegal act to obtain that dirt," said Jacob Frenkel, a white-collar lawyer at Dickinson Wright who previously worked in the now-defunct Office of the Independent Counsel. "The latter likely would be prosecutable, and probably as a conspiracy to commit a computer crime or as a computer crime."

Papadopoulos's conversation about "emails of Clinton" took place a month after Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's email account was hacked and well before WikiLeaks released his messages. Also, it was not until June 2016 that The Washington Post reported that the Democratic National Committee's computer network had been breached.

But at that time, it was well known that Clinton had deleted tens of thousands of emails she deemed personal from her private server. Those messages were of great interest to Republicans who believed they might show something nefarious.

It was unclear to what emails the professor was referring or if he truly had access to any messages damaging to Clinton. Jonathan Biran, a former federal prosecutor now in private prac

Re:Starting?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Curious that the entire article ignores the fact that Manafort's charges arise from working with the Ukraine - with John Podesta!

Re:Starting?

[GameboyRMH]

Let him go to jail too if he's found guilty of any crimes, I don't care.

Re:Starting?

[Shotgun]

The difference I see today vs. yesteryear is that the populace at-large is doing less critical thinking about how news should be ingested. That is, asking the following questions: Who is writing it? Why are they writing it? Is it to inform or entertain (or both)? What viewpoint are they trying to convey and why is that viewpoint important from the perspective of the author? How is it important to you as the reader/viewer?

Wow! Really? You really think grandma and grandpa did anything but completely lap up whatever the talking head on the box had to say? You think they critically analyzed and questioned the motivations of the thing their government was feeding them?

Re:Starting?

[Darinbob]

Too many people assume that if the story matches their preconceived notions that it must be accurate. Then they start filtering out contrary views. Flat earth thinking on a global scale.

Re:Starting?

[Hognoxious]

The Internet makes it easier to find diverse sources so as to not be in an echo chamber.

It also makes it easier to find ones which agree with you.

Want to take a guess which path most people choose?

Re:Starting?

[phantomfive]

The difference I see today vs. yesteryear is that the populace at-large is doing less critical thinking about how news should be ingested.

I think instead that the internet has allowed more and more people to voice their stupid opinions to the world. Before that, they told their neighbors, or a few friends who "liked talking about politics." Eternal September still hasn't ended. I admit when I first came to the internet, I also said one or two stupid things

Re:Starting?

[phantomfive]

Last time I checked, conspiracy was an indictable crime

You're not going to find the legal definition of collusion and conspiracy in Webster. If you want to know whether he committed a crime, you should look in a law book.

Re:Starting?

[paazin]

Besides, as the vilest writer hath his readers, so the greatest liar hath his believers: and it often happens, that if a lie be believed only for an hour, it hath done its work, and there is no further occasion for it.

Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect.

Jonathan Swift, 1710

This has been undoubtedly been going on since before the first written word; the only difference now is its apparent visibility.

Re:Starting?

[s_p_oneil]

While I liked your post, I don't necessarily agree because that is one of those statements that can be made every single generation. It's common for every generation to think "things used to be better" at some point, but IMO it's one of the ways in which hind-sight is not 20/20. I live in Georgia and have read about some of the political history around here. For a long time in Georgia's history, the candidate that threw the most (and the best) public barbecues got the most votes. How's that for good old "yesteryear" critical thinking? How is it much different from today where the candidates with the most money to throw around have the best chances of winning?

Remember lynch mobs? What about the Salem witch hunts? Back then, it seemed that all it took was a bit of fake news (which in some cases could simply be shouted out by anyone in the street) to get someone strung up. IMO the mentality of Internet trolling is the same. The consequences are so much lighter, and it's easier to do it anonymously, so people with that type of personality are way more likely to act out on the Internet. It doesn't mean that people are worse today, just that we're hearing it more.

headline is Logic bomb exploding

[goombah99]

First, fake news is not crowding out real news. But this article is perhaps an example of fake news. Is it crowding out something?

Re:headline is Logic bomb exploding

[Ksevio]

I imagine it depends a lot on your news source. If you only get your news from facebook and are friends with lots of gullible idiots, then you're gonna see a lot of fake news

Re:headline is Logic bomb exploding

[Train0987]

The beauty of the internet is that it allows readers to check multiple sources for any one subject/story, as opposed to just swallowing whatever the legacy media told them to believe. That scares the shit out of them.

Re:headline is Logic bomb exploding

[liquid_schwartz]

I imagine it depends a lot on your news source. If you only get your news from facebook and are friends with lots of gullible idiots, then you're gonna see a lot of fake news

To be fair I think that there's a lot of examples of inaccurate news from "regular" news outlets. I've lost count of how many many news articles conflate illegal immigrant with legal immigrant for example. These biases cause "regular" news to get dubbed fake news, and the label really has been earned in many cases. Every site has some axe to grind is my observation.

Re:headline is Logic bomb exploding

[goombah99]

I've never read any news story I was an expert on and seen it fully correct. One has to read widely to not be mislead even accidentally.

Re:headline is Logic bomb exploding

[bobbied]

The beauty of the internet is that it allows readers to check multiple sources for any one subject/story, as opposed to just swallowing whatever the legacy media told them to believe. That scares the shit out of them.

The danger of the internet is literally anybody can put up a website that looks like it's a reliable source so it's easy to fool a lot of people quickly. The next danger is the ability to skew search engine results by "paying" for higher ranking.

The end result is that the "truth" is for sale and there is no way to know if what you are reading is actually the truth or somebody's attempt to influence you to support their cause.

Also, it means the that the mainstream media outlets, who are chasing profits, are prone to publish sensationalism over substance.. Which is the third problem... The internet is about profit, not about facts or truth. What they fear is losing their audience, either by offending them when the facts don't agree with reader's opinions or being shown for the profit whores they have become.

Then, dare I mention him, Trump comes along and upsets everybody's apple carts, by using the same medium to push his messaging and all you know what breaks lose. Now we are in this rough and tumble period where everybody has to figure out what the hub-bub is about and when and how it will end.

The new reality is, the internet is a waste land where grains of truth are strewn about in the sand dunes of a partisan desert being blow around by the breath of the yelling talking heads.

Re:headline is Logic bomb exploding

[Train0987]

Before the internet literally anybody could spread whatever rumor they wanted and there was no way to check for yourself. It wasn't that long ago that such word of mouth was the only way to get any news.

Re:headline is Logic bomb exploding

[rickb928]

It was once assumed that any news outlet that could afford to publish was trustworthy - proof that not only does money talk, it demands to be heard.

And we know that news outlets that predated the Internet are no more or less trustworthy now than they were back then. Discerning truth or at least objectivity isn't any easier than ever, though it seems harder because there are more to consider. This is false. Those legacy outlets had a history that confirmed trust without any real foundation.

Re:headline is Logic bomb exploding

[Nidi62]

I imagine it depends a lot on your news source. If you only get your news from facebook and are friends with lots of gullible idiots, then you're gonna see a lot of fake news

To be fair I think that there's a lot of examples of inaccurate news from "regular" news outlets. I've lost count of how many many news articles conflate illegal immigrant with legal immigrant for example. These biases cause "regular" news to get dubbed fake news, and the label really has been earned in many cases. Every site has some axe to grind is my observation.

Biased news is not inherently "fake news". All news has some level of inherent bias just from the level of deciding what is "newsworthy" and what isn't. And that's before adding any editorial spin on the facts. You just have to recognize that bias and account for it. For example I get a lot of my foreign news from al-Jazeera, and I realize a lot of their content will have a pro-Qatar and pro-Palestine slant. There will always be inaccuracies as well, it's the nature of information-you always get more with time. "Fake news" is taking objective facts and claiming the opposite, not transparently correcting factual inaccuracies in reporting once they become known, or even just making shit up. "Fake news" has gone from the meaning "false news" to "news I don't like".

Re:headline is Logic bomb exploding

[Nidi62]

Before the internet literally anybody could spread whatever rumor they wanted and there was no way to check for yourself. It wasn't that long ago that such word of mouth was the only way to get any news.

And before the internet those rumors were pretty much limited to people you know. Now, with the internet, as Jonathan Swift said "Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it". People are more likely to believe the first thing they hear, so by the time the truth reaches them, it's too late.

Re:headline is Logic bomb exploding

[Train0987]

The answer is more critical thinking, not less. More information, not less. It's OK to venture outside your bubble and read something you disagree with every now and then.

Re:headline is Logic bomb exploding

[Teun]

All around me I see lazy consumers taking any message for the truth, especially if it comes from Fox News.

Re:headline is Logic bomb exploding

[Nidi62]

The answer is more critical thinking, not less. More information, not less. It's OK to venture outside your bubble and read something you disagree with every now and then.

I agree. The only way to refute people peddling lies and falsehoods is to first know what they are peddling. That's why I occasionally listen to talk radio on the way home in the afternoon. The problem is, most people throwing around the "fake news" mantra are decidedly not using critical thinking.

Re:headline is Logic bomb exploding

[apoc.famine]

Which is super telling when one party tries to defund education while the other tries to pump money into it.

Re: headline is Logic bomb exploding

[Train0987]

Nonsense. I would argue that one learns more from propaganda than from the truth. Propaganda presents more information than the truth in many circumstances (like the who, what and why behind those putting out such propaganda). The trick is having critical thinking skills.

Re:headline is Logic bomb exploding

[bobbied]

Before the internet literally anybody could spread whatever rumor they wanted and there was no way to check for yourself. It wasn't that long ago that such word of mouth was the only way to get any news.

And even then, the media, was agenda driven. I observed such political bias 25 years ago in the media, long before the internet was a thing or the talking heads came into being. I can assure you that it's much WORSE now.

The question is what the antidote is. MORE garbage from the internet? Censorship OF the internet? What?

Censorship is NOT the answer, nor is it consistent with the 1st amendment. So we cannot do this anyway. What does that leave?

In my view, the solution is one of personal responsibility and the publishing of VERIFIED original source material. Press conferences need to be available in their entirety, no comment or opinion. Public meetings, public records and the full text of any and all materials need to be archived and available. THEN, any news reporting needs to disclose their sources and provide copies of ALL materials they base their reporting on unless it's clearly labeled "opinion". Under these rules, you can publish anything you like. The only new requirement is that you must disclose the source of your "facts" so they can be traced back to their original source.

Re:headline is Logic bomb exploding

[DatbeDank]

The beauty of the internet is that it allows readers to check multiple sources for any one subject/story, as opposed to just swallowing whatever the legacy media told them to believe. That scares the shit out of them.

Except most "journalists" these days just copy and paste identical stories from the same wire service or press release without doing any real writing or thinking.

Re:headline is Logic bomb exploding

[bobbied]

It was once assumed that any news outlet that could afford to publish was trustworthy - proof that not only does money talk, it demands to be heard.

And we know that news outlets that predated the Internet are no more or less trustworthy now than they were back then. Discerning truth or at least objectivity isn't any easier than ever, though it seems harder because there are more to consider. This is false. Those legacy outlets had a history that confirmed trust without any real foundation.

Personally I find the legacy outlets only slightly better than the fly by night, come lately, website operators. Most of the legacy operators have long ago left the era where "news" was about network prestige, trust and not profit. There are a few dinosaurs left who attempt to adhere to traditional journalistic ethics at these places, but profits are driving your local newsroom and have for more than a decade. News papers are dying, Network news has deteriorated into the dueling 24 hour cable news networks. Good reporting costs money, takes time and it isn't profitable anymore (not that it ever really was). So the industry has been consolidating, merging and fighting bankruptcy after bankruptcy. So they have turned to being tabloids, publishing click bait news stories with dubious sources in a desperate attempt to make a few pennies, pay salaries and their hosting services. Even the established legacy outlets are doing this now.

Re:headline is Logic bomb exploding

[GameboyRMH]

And it's telling when the people who defend the defunding of education open with arguments against fictional problems.

Re:headline is Logic bomb exploding

[Lonewolf666]

But the owners of the legacy media had a lot more control of what got published or at least which direction the spin should have.

For instance, work contracts between the German newspaper publisher Axel Springer SE used to contain clauses that required solidarity with the USA and a commitment to Israel's right to live. Which is clearly a bias.
Now I cannot really complain about the Israel part. Germany still has no moral right to bash Israel. Not after the Holocaust. But the "solidarity with USA" part shows that traditional media were not as impartial as they like to make us believe.

Re:headline is Logic bomb exploding

[PopeRatzo]

It wasn't that long ago that such word of mouth was the only way to get any news.

At least when you get news via "word of mouth" you see whose mouth it's coming out of, and you know who to blame when it turns out to be bullshit.

That is in contrast to those who get their news from 4chan or reddit or Cambridge Analytica.

The internet as it exists today is literally a psyops machine. And it's a machine that collects information on you and knows exactly what BS you are inclined to believe.

Re: headline is Logic bomb exploding

[PopeRatzo]

Nonsense. I would argue that one learns more from propaganda than from the truth.

Man, that is some choice Orwell "lies are truth" shit right there.

It's how people like you are made to believe that Trump didn't say something he literally said on camera an hour ago.

Re:headline is Logic bomb exploding

[serviscope_minor]

The beauty of the internet is that it allows readers to check multiple sources for any one subject/story,

The downside of the internet is that people can find a source confirming anything no matter how wrong.

legacy

n. something no longer fashionable which usually differes from the proposed alternative by actually working. (apologies to Stroustrup)

Re:headline is Logic bomb exploding

[AmiMoJo]

Your post is an example of the kind of fake news they are taking about. A populist message with little basis in reality, designed to appeal to a specific demographic.

How many Slashdot users who claim it's easy to fact check stuff online have actually just read it, nodded because it confirms their existing views on millennials, and scrolled on.

Re:headline is Logic bomb exploding

[AmiMoJo]

People don't fact check all the stuff they read. Most of the time they don't even read TFA, it's not just a Slashdot tradition it's everywhere.

That's how this stuff works. It's just believable enough for people to not bother questioning it or reading too deeply. Over time it skews their world view and they start believing the really crazy stuff.

Re:headline is Logic bomb exploding

[dryeo]

Wasn't it you up the page talking about critical thinking? Perhaps you should try it.

Re:headline is Logic bomb exploding

[phantomfive]

Yeah, allowing everyone to say stupid things is still better than only letting the privileged few with a printing press say stupid things.

In my view, the solution is one of personal responsibility and the publishing of VERIFIED original source material.

This is a good idea.

Re:headline is Logic bomb exploding

[liquid_schwartz]

Biased news is not inherently "fake news". All news has some level of inherent bias just from the level of deciding what is "newsworthy" and what isn't. And that's before adding any editorial spin on the facts. You just have to recognize that bias and account for it. For example I get a lot of my foreign news from al-Jazeera, and I realize a lot of their content will have a pro-Qatar and pro-Palestine slant. There will always be inaccuracies as well, it's the nature of information-you always get more with time. "Fake news" is taking objective facts and claiming the opposite, not transparently correcting factual inaccuracies in reporting once they become known, or even just making shit up. "Fake news" has gone from the meaning "false news" to "news I don't like".

Deliberately cherry picking stats from legal immigrants, who are largely positive, and applying those to illegal immigrants, who are largely negative, is more than editorial bias. It's deliberately being misleading, which is certainly a flavor of lying, and is in fact what I'd call fake news. Here is an example: https://www.vox.com/2018/4/13/... The straw man they create is illegal immigrants pay no taxes. The actual issue many taxpayers have , myself included, is that illegal immigrants take out more than they put in. The article goes on to say that illegals pay $23.6 billion in taxes. They make it sound like a big plus, as if it helps. Left out is that they cost $134.9 billion, which means that the net cost is still >$100 billion in the red. This is far more than editorial bias, it's only pushing half the story with key facts unmentioned. The key fact of the costs are common sense, this isn't asking too much or a level of detail that is above average. The Vox article is what I'd call fake news. All it has is a straw man in the beginning followed by Enron style math where all liabilities are ignored.

People have gone really stupid

[DogDude]

At least on social media, people have lost their collective minds. We've stopped posting anything that allows for any sort of discussion on social media, because people seem to be really insane on social media. They say and act very stupidly. If this is where most people are getting their news these days (and I don't doubt that it is), God help us all. The human race is going to eat itself because it's too fucking stupid to live.

Re:People have gone really stupid

[Train0987]

Yet somehow humanity survived just fine before social media even existed. The idiots who destroyed that medium can keep it.

Re:People have gone really stupid

[evendiagram]

Partisanship is a helluva drug.

but this article

[originalGMC]

I posit that this is a byproduct of allowing for-profit journalism. If a journalist is hungry enough and has no integrity, they cease being a journalist and transform into a super saiyajin capitalist pig fucker, or worse, a blogger. I say prevent this by making the news and journalism entirely unprofitable, illegal to profit from, rather a 'sanctioned and free construct' where real journalists may flock to for a meal ticket and a rent check whilst plying their trade. Dear CPFs of the world, stay out of raw information, which I believe is a human right. By simply being born, you deserve to be told the truth.

Re:but this article

[jm007]

other than pointing out what others should be doing, what are YOU doing? it's your idea, make it happen; or sit and whine that others aren't doing what you want them to

take all that energy and change the world with your actions

Re:but this article

[Anonymous Coward]

making the news and journalism entirely unprofitable

They already did that with the advent of online news sources, and look where that got us. Hell, it's because the news has been so entirely demonetized that fake news thrives, since everything now has to be either uninformed listicles or vitriol-filled opinion pieces. And of course, if you want the truth made public with the sting of money, there has always been PBS/BBC news, but they don't present everything in sexy setpieces or easily digestible sound bites.

Re:but this article

[originalGMC]

lol I would talk about what I'm doing but that would be off topic. I invented a basic income system that costs $5.00 per month per human but takes about 30 years to fully implement, manifesting first as both a 0% mortgage / small business loan, then ultimately as a tax-free income redistribution once the y-axis hits the 'point of no return'. It is my platform for an office run in 2020. I'm hoping the humans of my constituency can see the wisdom of a long term plan. The 'don't be a pussy' cajole is usually MY move, jm007.

Re:but this article

[originalGMC]

Yes we are also witnessing this 'disruption' but also feel that advertising (especially advertising concepts as opposed to products) is immoral. Also, when looking for a recipe for making orzo from scratch yields even on Duckduckgo the flurry of listicles which make me want to (if the internet was a shed) burn it the fuck down (for being such as shitty shed).

Best I can do is to contribute my ideas and see if they catch on. An ideal world would feed clothe and house the people who give us raw and undigested information, and feed, clothe and jail those individuals who would seek to circumvent the truth for profit. I say again, by simply being born, I believe you deserve to be told the truth.

Trust us, goyim

[Anonymous Coward]

You can find the REAL facts at sites like (((Politifact))) and (((Snopes)))!

"Fake News" is the banner...

[forkfail]

...under which full censorship and surveillance will come.

In this postmodern age, most are more interested in their own subjective truth being widely accepted than they are in actual objective truth for its own sake. Thus, the question becomes not so much "will it happen" but "who will control it". And the powers that be are already operating on this premise.

Re:"Fake News" is the banner...

[nine-times]

Unfortunately, creating fake news is also one of the steps that authoritarians take on their way to dictatorships.

The real problem isn't people calling out fake news as such, but the people in power incorrectly calling out real news as "fake news", and then using their power to push their own fake news.

Because really, there is actual fake news, and it needs to be identified. The government doesn't need to censor it, but we, as a people, need to resist against malicious propagandists.

Re:"Fake News" is the banner...

[bobbied]

Yup.. We are rushing headlong into a story line that would make Orwell proud..

Re:"Fake News" is the banner...

[Theaetetus]

Unfortunately, creating fake news is also one of the steps that authoritarians take on their way to dictatorships.

The real problem isn't people calling out fake news as such, but the people in power incorrectly calling out real news as "fake news", and then using their power to push their own fake news.

Because really, there is actual fake news, and it needs to be identified. The government doesn't need to censor it, but we, as a people, need to resist against malicious propagandists.

As long as the people tasked with identifying what's true and what's fake are not the people in power.

Re:"Fake News" is the banner...

[nine-times]

Well I agree... to a point. For example, I don't think it's controversial to think that law enforcement can get involved in cases of fraud, or that courts can hear slander and liable cases. There are times when a disreputable source of information needs to be taken to task, but there has to be a very high standard for that.

But what I was arguing is more that, there's a particularly knee-jerk reaction towards anything resembling censorship, and we worry about true things being labelled "fake news" by someone with an agenda. And fair enough, that's happening a lot lately. But I wish it were so simple as "people should always be able to say what they want!"

I just mean to point out that, dangerous propaganda doesn't only come in the form of dismissing important true news as "fake". It also comes in the form of promoting false or misleading information as "true", and we can't forget that. People jump too quickly on the bandwagon of "freedom of speech" as "I can say anything I want without consequence or accountability", which can easily be abused by powerful people with malicious intent.

Definition

[Nidi62]

I see plenty of people that seem to have no problem defining fake news. If it's inconvenient, shows them in a bad light, discounts their narrative, doesn't match their world view. Here's a convenient list of people using the "fake news" claim: Rodrigo Duterte (Philippines), Bashar al-Assad (Syria), Nicolas Maduro (Venezuela), Donald Trump (US). Some interesting company there.

Re:Definition

[Anonymous Coward]

A convenient list curated by you, which conveniently ignores other people who use the "fake news" claim.

Not a problem for me

[Snotnose]

Mostly because I get 0.0% of my news from Social Media. And it will stay that way until some pissed off relative signs my corpse up with Facebook.

Re:Not a problem for me

[Tony Isaac]

Perhaps you get your news from a much more reliable source, like YouTube or Reddit. Or...slashdot!

Long time coming

[Virtucon]

This started when news became

1) Less filtered. We had journalists and editors. Journalists sought out stories, investigated them and editors reviewed their work. Sure there were biases and still are but now it's about getting first to get it out there quality of source/content be damned. This also precipitates more lazy fuck journalists and so-called editors more anxious to get a story pushed and who gives two fucks about if it's true or not.
2) More entertainment. News was something that happened all the time but you were exposed to it less frequently. Now you have TV shows, Cable Networks and the Internet bombarding you stories that are more infotainment than news. It's hard to distinguish what's important vs. fluffy kittens. This has also led to aggregators who now calls themselves news organizations *cough* Huffington Post *cough* News used to be consumed when you read a newspaper, a magazine or watched the evening news with Cronkite, now it's in your face 24/7 and they have airtime to fill. That's why you have contrived things like "townhall meetings" to discuss whether or not Michelle Obama's opinion actually fucking matters.
3) ADHD of our population. Attention span akin to the life expectancy of gnats.
4) I blame the parents, get off my lawn.

Re:Long time coming

[Anonymous Coward]

That's looking back with rose tinted glasses. We long had yellow press that would report anonymous rumors, we've long had actual spies working under journalistic cover, etc. Hell, the more you know about how the early telegraph worked the more you know just what greedy bastards would like to make the internet into. Yes, the entertainment "news" is nonsense and I ignore it with utter contempt as I do not care whatsoever what random celebrities think.

That said, I ignore news and look at sources only. I do not care about some blowhard's opinion, I wish only to shove it back where it came from. I care what sources and facts they have and what evidence. It's amazing how thin the bluster is if you look at it that way and how shrill the defenders of such fakery are.

Re:Long time coming

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, Real journalism does not exist today. My dad was a journalist for CBS news and covered the White House for WCBS in Washington DC. He always said that if you are not covering both sided of the story then all you are doing is propaganda. He also had said that if you are doing that you will never have any listeners.

All there is today is propaganda. There is no "News" at all. It is all "This is what we think happened and this is how you should feel about it.". How wrong my dad was. My dad would also be shocked at the definition of "News" today if he hadn't passed away in 1994.

I quit watching news early 2000's

Nathan

Re:Politicians need to control this

[Train0987]

Correct, labeling everything on the internet 'Fake News' is more the death-rattle of the legacy media who have lost all relevancy.

Re:Politicians need to control this

[jm007]

yes, well said

Fake news is a meme

[sjbe]

The volume of disinformation on the internet is growing so big that it is starting to crowd out real news

I think this article is a perfect example since that isn't actually true except in the minds of those who want it to be so. Back here in the real world "fake news" is something that mostly exists in the mind of one Donald John Trump and his supporters and it means news he doesn't like. He actually acts as if sources like Fox News report actual facts reliably. There is some actual false or misleading reporting but that is nothing new and will never go away.

And frankly if you actually use twitter or Facebook (or Fox News) as your primary or worse, sole news source then you are the problem.

Mod up-- need Godwin's law for Trump.

[goombah99]

Yes. Please. make slashdot Trumpless.

Re:Mod up-- need Godwin's law for Trump.

[Kazoo the Clown]

"As an online discussion about Trump grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Putin approaches 1" - Boris Godwin's Law

You get what you don't pay for

[goombah99]

I subscribe to both the NY times and the Wall Street Journal (just don't read the comments section or the editorials). There's plenty of real news in these papers. Support them if you like real news.

Non-paywalled news is going to go for clicks as the profit center so Dopamine news is what one gets there. It's not necessarily fake just not composed with integrity as it's quantity over quality.

Real news just doesn't change fast enough. This is also why news tied to a print publisher has sort of a natural limit of quantity and durability.

Re:You get what you don't pay for

[Iamthecheese]

Wall Street Journal you say? And the venerable New York Times? I'm sure you're fine then.

Re:Politicians need to control this

[DavidHumus]

By "legacy media" you mean traditional news sources that fact-check, edit, and issue corrections when mistakes are discovered?

What place is there for irony when the biggest promoter of the term "fake news" is someone who averages five untrue public statements a day?

Solution: dump social media

[Rick Schumann]

To begin to solve the 'fake news' problem (and it is a problem) people should dump 'social media', or at least limit it to people the actually know. Fake 'friends' on social media are at the core of the problem; why would anyone believe what someone you've never met or even spoken to tells you? Using 'social media' as a news source is just plain dumb and people need to learn to not do it anymore.

Re:Solution: dump social media

[Rick Schumann]

Honestly anyone who takes any news source, no matter how credible, 100% without applying some critical thinking and a good-sized dollop of skepticism isn't doing it right anyway.

Re:Politicians need to control this

[Train0987]

Your "traditional" news sources have given up all journalistic integrity in exchange for agenda pushing activism decades ago.

Re:Hate News

[Train0987]

George Orwell predicted folks like you.

Every week, a new threat to democracy

[alternative_right]

Two world wars were fought to save democracy.

Now it is threatened by "fake news," whatever that is?

Forget it -- if your system is that fragile, let it fall.

Giving everyone the vote, regardless of whether they can tell fake from real, was a mistake obviously.

Threat to Democracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be hard to come up with a great "threat to democracy" than government regulation of news and communications.

Re:Politicians need to control this

[Nidi62]

Your "traditional" news sources have given up all journalistic integrity in exchange for agenda pushing activism decades ago.

I blame Ron Burgundy. Anchorman 2 was an excellent documentary on how we got the media industry we have today.

People need to be universally skeptical

[presidenteloco]

until we perfect AI bullshit detectors that is.

Even then, how will you know you're believing an honest AI?

Learn and use solid epistemology principles (and cognitive bias awareness) in deciding what to believe and how much. Anyone that can't do that is no more than a victim going forward; flotsam tossed on the seas of garbage.

There has always been fake news

[sdinfoserv]

There has always been fake news - we used to call it bullshit, hearsay, rumors, gossip.... whatever
There are 3 critical differences today.
First, most people seem to completely lack critical thinking skills.
Second, as advertising dollars have gone charging after social media, away from traditional news, we've lost research, vetting, source verification, professionalism and objectivity from the news cycle
And Lastly is political polarization. We have politicians, more importantly the "leader of the free world", who routinely spouts blatant fabrications, just complete malarkey, and the rest of his party refuse to hold him accountable for any nonsense that my fall from his mouth or twitter account. Even sadder are the minions who believe it - simply because it comes from the party of their affiliation.

Re:There has always been fake news

[Fly Swatter]

Allow me to respond.

First, people appear more gullible that ever, more so on the internet where everyone is somewhat faceless.

Second, advertising is worse than that, sometimes it isn't even clear it is an advertisement. There is so much noise now news and truth get lost in the muck, assuming an advertisement hasn't blocked or driven you away from the content.

Third, we have a political party that lost an election, and ever since since has been on a smear and tear down campaign of the winner all while crying it isn't fair that they lost. They said they would move to Canada after losing, liars.

Re:There has always been fake news

[sdinfoserv]

First - yes, that's essentially what i said.
Second - perhaps advertising is "worse", but then again, without vetted news people, stories and processes - a result of advertising capital moving from news media to social medial - no organization can be held accountable.
Third - Fact; the GOP hasn't won popular vote in a first term presidential election since Bush 1 - 27 years ago. . The only way the GOP can hang on to the seat is via gerrymandering. But, you just keep waiving that "lost election" flag so what ever dude - but the real losers here are American Citizens. .... Mueller has 24 indictments against Trump related personnel including 5 guilty pleas... After years of investigating (but, but, but, but, but.... HILLARY!), the entire DOJ investigation landed with a big thud nothing burger finding no more then 'ya, the email server thing was a bad idea'. Meanwhile Trump claims global warming is a fake news, contradicts himself in one statement after another, states Putin is a stand up fella and Canadians / EU are the real enemies. If any of these happened during a Dem president, the right would have started impeachment process - like they did to Clinton over a blow job (making the US look like uptight idiots - but Slick Willie lied! ok, listen to Trumpkin for 5 minutes and try and find the truth... where's the impeachment process? where's the outrage? I got it, no corporate $$ so the people don't matter).
Glad you a MAGA guy and all, just keep drinking the coolaid. Eventually the toxic waist you guys are allowing back into the environment might get you - more likely will poison your kids, but hey, it's not you right! good job.

Re:There has always been fake news

[Fly Swatter]

I don't align with either party, however that was a nice essay. I figured I'd get a reaction, but wow thank you for proving my point.

Re:Politicians need to control this

[cascadingstylesheet]

By "legacy media" you mean traditional news sources that fact-check, edit, and issue corrections when mistakes are discovered?

That would be nice. Instead, we had Dan Rather.

Re:Not A Democracy

[bobbied]

The US isn't a democracy.. We are a representative Republic.

What's the difference?

In a democracy, everybody votes on every question directly and usually majority wins.

In a representative Republic, voters pick who they want to represent them. Then those picked go make decisions about the issues.

THIS is how we where founded and why things like the electoral college, Congress and the Senate exist.

Re: Fact-checking as a UBI career.

[Train0987]

Learn how to think critically and you won't be so gullible.

Re:Politicians need to control this

[Train0987]

Yep, the same ones who breathlessly reported on the Gulf of Tonkin incident and Saddam's WMD's.

Knowledge is power

[admin7087]

That's something that people who get their news from bloggers, radical radio hosts, social media, and shady news aggregator sites will learn the hard way.

Re:Hate News

[Train0987]

People who would censor "fake news" are far more dangerous than those who put it out. At least the latter allows people a choice.

Nothing New

[Anonymous Coward]

As Mark Twain is reported to have said "If you don't read a newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read a newspaper, you are misinformed."

The problem is that most news is "fake" in the sense that it passes through a filter that only allows interesting clickbait to pass. If it won't attract and hold an audience for advertisers it has no value. As a result, it sourced almost entirely from people with a professional interest in the message it conveys and who have the skill and resources to craft a message that serves their interest while attracting an audience for the targeted media. The media are the junior partners of the wealthy and powerful.

This is nothing new. General William Sherman described the news media as a threat to the country and blamed it for whipping up partisan hysteria that lead to the civil war. Then there is "Remember the Main" which lead to the Spanish-American war, a frenzy whipped up by the Hearst newspapers. More recently, we have weapons of mass destruction".

But perhaps the most indicative of this partnership is Watergate. Somehow the FBI forced Nixon out of office while having itself portrayed as a "whistle blower" by the Washington Post. "Deep Throat" turned out to be the assistant FBI director who had complete knowledge of the investigation since he oversaw it. We have no idea if he had the FBI director's approval and there is no way for the Washington Post reporters to know either. They just didn't care. And the assistant Director didn't need his approval anyway since his job included deciding what information, if any, to share with the public.

By the way, ironically the media has often attributed the quote above to Twain, but there apparently is no evidence he ever said it. It doesn't matter, it sounds like him.

Re:WaPo = Fake News

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, if Manifort won't or can't give Mueller a smoking gun to bring down Trump, he must be destroyed as an example to the next potential witness to come with something...*anything* even if they have to lie...effective to use against Trump in Mueller's investigation, or suffer the consequences. Every means must be employed. The Left has gained too much ground over the past couple of decades to see it all taken back by Trump and his Trumptards.

Just to set the record straight

[presidenteloco]

The term "fake news" arose in US dialog to describe bizarrely distorted and completely made up hit pieces put out against Hilary Clinto and the Democrat campaign by various Trump-supporting people and also certain foreign actors, some of whom were supporting Trump and some were just out to make a living off ad-click revenue.

Trump started calling the mainstream media "fake news" as a defensive tactic, to deflect from the accusations of fake news helping him get elected.

Just so we're clear on where this all came from.

Yes, the US mainstream media is distorted and prone to sicophantic support for US policy, like the Iraq war cheerleading for example, but their level of distortion is nothing compared to the spew of right-wing completely and obviously fake rubbish that started spewing out during the 2016 election campaign.

Re:Just to set the record straight

[DNS-and-BIND]

You joking? The mainstream media that we know for a fact was colluding with the Democrats to throw the election for Hillary? We have hard proof; Wikileaks confirms. Freedom of the Press does not imply Honesty of the Press. The media tells only the story that confirms its own view, that in the end it was incapable of seeing an alternative outcome and of making a true risk assessment of the political variables - reaffirming the Hillary Clinton camp's own political myopia. This defines the parallel realities in which liberals, in their view of themselves, represent a morally superior character.

Here's CNN getting caught red-handed planting debate questions. http://imgur.com/a/OMD6b#ed8AV...

On June 16, 2014, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank published a column alleging that a peaceful Muslim was nearly verbally lynched by violent Islamophobes at a Heritage Foundation-hosted panel. What Milbank described was despicable. Unfortunately for Milbank and the Washington Post's credibility, someone filmed the event and posted the film on YouTube. Panel discussants, including Frank Gaffney and Brigitte Gabriel, made important points in a courteous manner. Saba Ahmed, the peaceful Muslim, is a "family friend" of a bombing plotter who expressed a specific desire to murder children. It soon became clear that Milbank was, as one blogger put it, "making stuff up."

CNN cuts off congressman when he mentions Wikileaks with Clinton.

Ex-CBS reporter's book reveals how liberal media protects Obama

Compilation of CNN & MSNBC Cutting Guests Mics to Protect Hillary Clinton

The entire media endorsed Hillary.

CBS's John Dickerson: http://www.mediaite.com/online...">Donald Trump Didn't Ruin the Press's Reputation, We Did That Ourselves.

Here's the media changing headlines to attack Trump on dozens of occasions.

Look at all these respected journalists express surprise, dismay, and a total lack of understanding that Hillary lost. They even admit it: "I genuinely do not understand America."

Journalists don't want the media to stop being partisans, they just want them to be *more effective* partisans! To be more effective at beating Trump. The assumptions and goals are the same - Trump is evil, he should be destroyed. It never occurs to the media or their "critics" that the media is not supposed to have any skin in the game...you can only "lose" if you are fighting an opponent...and THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

What bothers me the most about the media is that not only are they horribly prejudiced - they don't even seem to be able to recognize their prejudice. That's so bad.

Re:Just to set the record straight

[sysrammer]

The fake trolls are out in force today.

Anyways, I remember the Fake News meme starting up around the time Fox got a judge to agree that News does not have to be Factual.

Re:Just to set the record straight

[Raenex]

The term "fake news" arose in US dialog to describe bizarrely distorted and completely made up hit pieces put out against Hilary Clinto and the Democrat campaign by various Trump-supporting people and also certain foreign actors, some of whom were supporting Trump and some were just out to make a living off ad-click revenue.

Just to set the record straight:

The term "fake news" went viral by panicked and authoritarian leftists after Trump won the election. It was an attempt to conflate blatantly "fake news" clickbait with right-leaning websites, so that those sites would be censored by the tech giants, conveniently ignoring the mirror version on the left. The future is now:

"So what happens if Facebook staff were to look at Zimdars' list and accept it and decide to censor the sharing of headlines from these sites? It's within Facebook's power and right to do so, but it would be a terrible decision on their end. They wouldn't just be preventing the spreading of factually incorrect, fabricated stories. They would be blocking a lot of opinionated analysis from sites on the basis of their ideologies. The company would face a backlash for such a decision that could impact their bottom line."

Re:Just to set the record straight

[admin7087]

You're right about the term "fake news" but I'd like to add that talking about "US mainstream media" is way too vague to be of any use in any discussion. In the US you absolutely have to distinguish between newspapers, radio, and TV:

- Radio plays no substantial role. Some US radio hosts may be informative whole others would land in prison or pay hefty fines for libel, slander, and hate speech in almost every other civilized country.

- TV "news" is mostly hysterical crap and also very biased in the US. It has always been like that, the quality is really low almost everywhere. If you primarily get your "news" from Fox or CNN, you will remain uninformed, though certainly less than if you get your news from other internet sources like news aggregation sites.

- Most US newspapers are outstanding, no matter which political bias they have. The people who criticize newspapers do not read them. The printed versions are extremely informative, and a good way to get good background information in the US (besides other sources like foreign online news,directly tapping into press agencies, documentaries).

Every other alleged news source in the US is not only crap, it doesn't even generate any news. Left and right wing "info sites", bloggers, social media, etc. do nothing else but copying news from shady sources who copied the news in the place. Most of them employ no journalists or way too few, and even worse, most of them don't even have subscriptions for news agencies.

So in a nutshell, US TV channels and the social media are and have always been horrible 'news' sources, but printed newspapers are fairly good and will inform you.

In my experience the people who criticize mainstream media are almost universally uneducated and misinformed because they get their "news" from way less reliable sources and do not understand that somewhere there needs to be real journalist recording, taking pictures, and jotting down notes in order for there to be any news at all.

Re:Just to set the record straight

[Alypius]

Kinda like that whole "fake but accurate" thing a while back.

Re:Just to set the record straight

[dryeo]

OTOH, the main stream media gifted Trump with billions in free coverage while going on about how good for ratings Trump is. If the MSM doesn't want someone as President, they ignore them like they did with Ron Paul, even going so far as listing 1st,2nd and 4th place in the primaries and not mentioning Paul's 3rd place finish.
The truth is that the owners of the MSM are generally interested in one thing, making money, whereas the reporters and editors are more varied. It's why they don't like leftist candidates such as Bernie and supported the conservative ex-Republican Clinton and weren't sure about the Authoritarian Trump with his left wing economic policies.

Re:Just to set the record straight

[pots]

The mainstream media that we know for a fact was colluding with the Democrats to throw the election for Hillary? We have hard proof; Wikileaks confirms.

You seem to have linked the wrong document here, this is just a campaign strategy document. It doesn't say anything like what you're suggesting. I would like to see this proof though, after all of the bullshit accusations it would be nice to see something concrete.

I'm not going to go through all of your links, especially not the video ones, but let's see here... I see a picture of a woman holding a printout of an email with "Your Question" written at the top. And that is proof of... something. Proof of CNN vetting questions I guess? I don't know anything about this particular event, but I'd be surprised if they didn't do that at all of the presidential debates. The only totally unmoderated debate that I know of is the Fancy Farm picnic in Kentucky, and it's just a bunch of people screaming at each other. It's totally useless, as you might expect.

The rest of your list is mostly the same, though I find this one kinda funny: "The entire media endorsed Hillary." You do understand that the media's job is to be objective, right? Objective does not mean nonpartisan, that's not the same thing. If one candidate is an absolute disgrace, then it's the job of the media to call that person out and expose their misdeeds. It's no surprise that all of those newspapers supported Hillary, when Trump was the alternative.

Re:Just to set the record straight

[Monster_user]

"Most US newspapers are outstanding"? Are you talking about national, or local papers?

I've had the opportunity to read a number of local newspapers, and they were not very informative or useful. Any hot ticket news is already 24+ hours old and out of date by the time the paper routes are completed. Only Luddites benefit any from yesterday's news.

Local events are typically buried in the fine print and background noise of the daily routines, and eventually ignored. Any coverage is not to promote local events, but rather is either a day late or 360 days early to bother reading. On rare occasions there may be useful news about future plans in the community, or a new business in town, or such. Don't think I've read a write-up on candidates for elections in various communities since I've subscribed. Not worth the modest price on a barely modest budget.

Re:Just to set the record straight

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like a game "how many biased and fake links can I post here?"

Re:Just to set the record straight

[DNS-and-BIND]

You are incorrect; there is no such obligation to be objective. I think the change to the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) code of ethics 22 years ago figures importantly. It removed objectivity and unleashed advocacy journalism. (I think most laypeople still think journalists have an ethical responsibility to be objective.) Though itÂ's not my argument journalists can be truly objective, the ethical requirement had them explore ideas that challenged their biases. They learnt stuff. Expanding their knowledge made them more competent, and it even improved their allies' arguments because they had to answer questions.

Today, they simply toss softball questions to their allies - this is practicing "good allyship", and the journalist also faces social and professional peer pressure to conform. Advocacy journalism makes the journalist a spokesperson, a public relations agent.

Hillary was the pro-war candidate who was going to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria that would lead us to direct military confrontation with a nuclear power. She bragged about this in the debates, remember? She was receiving public and financial support from various war-mongering neocons. You hate neocons, right? So why did the media endorse her regardless? It's totally possible for them to decline to endorse either candidate and it certainly happens. Or they could endorse Jill Stein.

Who do you trust?

[HiThere]

The problem is that all the sources of news have proven untrustworthy, so there's no way to validate the stories. People want to believe what they want to believe anyway, and if there's no place that has trustworthy reporting, why fight it?

If the traditional news sources had not sold out (generally after being bought up), then the problem would be considerably less severe. As it is...

There are still a few sources I generally trust. They are biased, but I haven't noticed them actually lying. Of course, they only cover a small portion of the news. How could they cover everything without using untrustworthy sources?

Who doubts that the news reports sports scores as recorded by the sports officials? Does they Chicago Tribune have headlines "Cubs win the Pennant" this year?

Lazy

[Berkyjay]

Tory MP Damian Collins said people struggle to identify "fake news."

"fake news" rarely holds up to scrutiny and fact checking. So it's not really a struggle, but a glut of apathy.

Re:Hate News

[Kurrelgyre]

It's a false choice, based on a false equivalency.

Do you have any evidence

[rsilvergun]

to back up your assertion? The MP report is sourced. You can disagree with the sources, but you didn't do that. You just said "No, that's not true".

The simple solution ...

[CaptainDork]

... is to bar "news," from entering the social media bubbles and echo chambers.

Social media is just that: A meeting place to be social.

News sites abound outside those limits and consumers can elect where to go get it.

Fake news will always be available and popular.

Look at The Enquirer.

People recognize tabloids for what they are.

Because

[slapout]

"threatens democracy and called for tougher social network regulation"

So because something threatens freedom, they should become less free

Re:An opinion not having a truth value

[presidenteloco]

An "opinion" is a propositional attitude of expressed belief about a proposition.

It is saying "in my opinion, X is true, was true, or will be true."

The proposition X, if well formed and embedded in (expressed in terms of) a reality-descriptive, generally reality-corresponding theory, can have a truth value.

All news sites are fake.

[gettin2old]

They are turning into advertisement delivery services. More readers/viewers means more ads. It's the facebook model. If you've noticed lately content (hell even simple grammar) has gone to hell. First page scandals make way more money than 5th page retractions.
To point at any news source as unbiased is laughable. At best, any news from them falls under the opinion column.

We can only combat fake news by removing the weak link. The non-critical thinking reader. Censoring speech and thoughts (or writings) because the person reading it is either stupid, gullible, or too lazy to gather their own facts is a bad idea. Now all you need to do is label something fake news to make it disappear. It's only fake until it isn't. The government spying on all of us was fake. Until Snowden proved it wasn't. The IRS blacklisting groups was fake. Until there was proof.
When is fake fake and when is it just inconvenient?

Re:WaPo = Fake News

[Alypius]

Literally the first Google hit.

Re:Hate News

[Alypius]

The Ministry of Truth thanks you for your support.

Leave it to the Brits ...

[PPH]

.. to get worked up over this. They had a lot of trouble with someone writing articles under the phony identity of Silence Dogood some time ago.

Happening for years

[Martin S.]

It is only becoming a problem because they are unable to control the internet like they've controlled the mass market media for decades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Not A Democracy

[phantomfive]

What you are describing is a direct democracy, but the US is still a democracy. If you're going to be nitpicky, get it right.

Re:WaPo = Fake News

[Gibgezr]

So ABC was the one reporting that Manifort pled guilty to manslaughter, and the Washington Post was just reporting on the fact that ABC had made a mistake in doing so? Uh-huh.

Re:An opinion not having a truth value

[nealric]

I'm not sure where you are getting that definition (it does not correspond to the dictionary definition), but it sounds like what you are talking about is really either a prediction or statement of personal belief with respect to a factual statement- not an opinion.

If you were to say, "In my opinion, the sky is blue," what you are really saying is that it is your belief that the sky is blue. You are couching a factual statement in terms of your personal belief. A statement of personal belief may be used to indicate the speaker is uncertain about the truth value of a statement due to insufficient or unreliable information about the truth value. For example, the statement of belief in "I believe it is raining outside" is used to indicate that the speaker is uncertain whether the factual statement is true or not and wishes to communicate that the statement may be based on unsupported inference.

A prediction has a truth value which cannot be ascertained until the passage of time. For example, "the sky will be blue tomorrow" is not an opinion- it is a prediction of the future truth value of a statement.

Opinions, by contrast, usually contain an ethical or metaphysical statement that is not falsifiable. For example, the statement "butterflies are beautiful" contains a statement about aesthetics that has no truth value. One cannot perform any observation, do any mathematics, or otherwise show that butterflies are factually beautiful. What you could do is make a factual statement about whether the value statement is in conformity with what human society accepts. For example, "most people think butterflies are beautiful" does have a truth value. But the fact that most people think butterflies are beautiful does not mean that "butterflies are ugly" has a negative truth value.

None of that means that opinions can't be ethically problematic, formed with false information, or even downright delusional. That doesn't make them false; but it may make them the subject of derision or ethical scorn.

Re:An opinion not having a truth value

[presidenteloco]

In my opinion:

Opinion can be belief or judgement, about matters which have a truth value.

They are not confined to aesthetic topics etc.

Also, whether it is an opinion or not does not affect the truth of the stated proposition.

It just means that some person or group holds an attitude of belief toward the proposition, and that they have stated their belief position.

For example, one could say: Broadly, it is the opinion of the cardiovascular research field currently that consuming a moderate number of eggs per week does not significantly affect risk of cardiovascular events.

Re:An opinion not having a truth value

[presidenteloco]

Further, "that is just (your) opinion" is used to dispute the truth of a proposition, but for that to work, there must be the assumption that the person whose opinion it is does not have good information or a sound inference process at reaching conclusions. That is insulting that person's cognitive capabilities or mode of overconfident expression. Now the implied accusation of bad reasoning ability may be accurate in many cases; nonetheless very wise and epistemically conservative people also have opinions, which have a high probability of being correct (factual).

Re:An opinion not having a truth value

[nealric]

I think we are talking about two different things here, and ultimately a semantic distinction. You are using opinion to mean a belief or prediction about a fact (and it is indeed colloquially used for that purpose). A belief about a fact is not really what we are talking about with respect to distinguishing fact from opinion.

Read as

[easyTree]

Their fake news crowding out our fake news. Simply unacceptable.

Sheesh... and this surprises anyone?

[Doctrinsograce]

This has been going on since language was invented. So whose fault is this? Obviously, those who present us with "news." Of course, they call it "journalism" today, rather than "reporting."

Real fake news is crowding out fake real news

[eric_harris_76]

After the first few times you see or read or hear a news story which you know is crap because you were there or the story is on a topic you know well or whatever, you realize you shouldn't believe 100% anything from the news unless you get it corroborated.

And if your corroboration comes from a news outlet that gets its feed from the same one you're trying to corroborate, it's the same as no corroboration at all.