Americans Don't Think the Platforms Are Doing Enough To Fight Fake News (poynter.org)

Journalists regularly weigh in on what platforms like Facebook and Google are and aren't doing to stop the spread of viral misinformation. But what do Americans at large think? From a report: Nothing good, according to a new survey published by Gallup and the Knight Foundation on Wednesday. The report, based on web surveys from a random sample of 1,203 U.S. adults, found that 85 percent of Americans don't think the platforms are doing enough to stop the spread of fake news. Additionally, 88 percent want tech companies to be transparent about how they surface content, while 79 percent think those companies should be regulated like other media organizations -- a common trope among journalists. That's despite the fact that the majority of people surveyed (54 percent) said social media platforms help keep them informed and that they're concerned about those companies making editorial judgments.

Comments

Tesla

[110010001000]

What? No stories about Tesla getting subpoenaed and officially investigated by the SEC? Where is WindBourne and Rei with the latest Tesla news?

Re:"Fake news" or "Opinions I disagree with?"

[PopeRatzo]

We're confusing manipulative lies with opinions incompatible with the worldview of a segment of the population, and it will destroy us.

Actually, no one is confused by the difference between incompatible worldviews and fake news except for the people who want to believe fake news or those whose political careers are based on calling real news "fake".

The only thing more obvious than fake news is someone who believes President Obama only created 175,000 jobs for black workers.

Re: "Fake news" or "Opinions I disagree with?"

[PopeRatzo]

Do people believe that presidents create jobs?

Here's someone who does:

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

"“I’ve created over a million jobs since I’m president.”
— President Trump, remarks on infrastructure, Aug. 15, 2017

“I think if we continue to create jobs like I’ve done — over 1 million since I’ve been in office, way over 1 million.”
— Trump, remarks at rally in Phoenix, Aug. 22, 2017

Re:You mean CNN?

[KiloByte]

Well, but CNN is downright scary. They were a respectable news source not so long ago, but nowadays? Main headline in huge letters: "Israel must be stopped". WTF?!? At that very time, the front page highlights (ie, before you scroll down) also included a call for racial war, and also one for gender war.

In disgust, I went and searched for what domain name Daily Stormer had that day. Anti-Israel, check. Racial war, check. Gender war, nope. So CNN was actually worse.

US news sites are completely bonkers. You have far-left and far-right, with nothing in between.

Re:"Fake news" or "Opinions I disagree with?"

[PopeRatzo]

I think there's been a significant rise of opinion pieces that are passed off as 'news'. I also find opinions laced into articles either through manipulative language or statements not backed by facts (and refuted by other news media articles) on a greater frequency than before.

Give us some examples.

Usually, when someone gives an example of a news article that is without bias, it's really just an article that conforms to their own bias.

News has always had bias. Journalism has always had bias. But as long as there is the name of a real person attached to that news, you can at least take the bias into account. Now, there are sources of fake news that are not anonymous, but everyone knows who they are (Infowars, The Onion, Breitbart, etc). But for the most part, most of the fake news is created and spread by anonymous actors.

And there's one sure-fire way to identify a non-anonymous source of fake news: see how often they retract or correct a story that's been shown to be wrong. If they do it on the regular, they're not a fake news source. If they do it very seldom or never (Infowars, Bretibart, Fox News), then they're sources of fake news.

Re:You mean CNN?

[Aighearach]

You've got some derp on your chin. Get back in the pile!