Didn’t your read the linked article provided by CurtC in post #133? Fake News has been around for a very, very, very long time.
Personally, I favor a broader definition of fake news. Any news that is fake qualifies as fake news. Does it matter why the news is fake? Not really. If the news if fake, the news if fake. Maybe the reporter/journalist made a mistake? That doesn’t change the fact that the news itself was fake. Maybe the reporter deliberately created a news story that was fake? Maybe the reporter jumped at the chance to cut and paste an internet rumor under their own byline? Of course, that would mean that the reporter could be personally held responsible for pushing news that was fake, so I’ll discount that possibility. Repeating an unverified story while claiming that “everyone” is talking about it would be a much safer position.
So you’ve shifted from your claim that the term “fake news” doesn’t imply fraudulent intent, to claiming that the word “fake” simply means “incorrect”?
You’re going to lose that argument too. The word “fake” itself implies the intent of fraud. The word “fake” is not used if there is a mistake without the intent to deceive. And that’s why the phrase “fake news” implies the intent to deceive, and not just an innocent mistake.
In your world, if the news story itself is fake/untrue/incorrect/phoney/made up/a mistake/just plain wrong/false does that somehow make the story true? Fake news is news that is fake. How, or why, that fake news was produced, or released, doesn’t change the fact that the news story was a fake.
“Fake news” is news that is intended to deceive. When you say something is a “fake,” it’s a forgery or a fraud. It is not simply an item with a defect in it. That’s the whole point of the right-wing bullshit in labeling news “fake news.” They’re not simply saying the reporting is erroneous. They’re saying the reporting is deliberately deceitful. If Fox News runs a story, discovers their error, and then sincerely corrects it, I would never call that “fake news.” It was erroneous news. “Fake” carries a connotation of an intent to deceive behind it.
Fake news has been around for a long time. In this 1894 picture from CurtC’s linked wiki article for fake news, it appears that Cheap Sensation, and Humbug News, are running with their partner Fake News. Birds of a feather, so to speak.
Fake news is not satire or parody. Fake news is not an honest mistake. Goldston is angry because Ross reported information that was “just plain wrong”. Goldston is also angry because Ross did so without anyone “having ever made a decision that we (ABC) were going to go to air with that information”. Did Ross simply make a mistake, or did Ross willingly broadcast fake news by skirting whatever passes as ABC’s editorial board (shows intent)? If ABC editors were to have seen Ross’s news story, would they have rejected it as fake news?
Goldston is also angry that 247,500 people (99%) made the decision to pillory ABC for reporting fake news. That’s a whole lot of people claiming this was fake news.
Are you willing to vouch for Ross’s actions as being an honest mistake? Or does Ross’s decision not to run this story past the editors suggest that Ross’s actions were a deliberately deceitful propagation of fake news?
doorhinge, I’m glad you’ve come around to accept that “fake news” does not include honest mistakes (nor satire).
Now you’re just accusing Ross of intentionally misreporting this. I would be extremely surprised if this were the case, because he would know that it would be called out and his reputation would suffer. It just wouldn’t make any sense at all. And the reason he didn’t run it past the editors is that it was a breaking story at the time.
ABC News president James Goldston is angry because Ross did not run everything past the editors. Ross couldn’t be bothered to follow company proceedures. I wonder why? What did Ross know about his story that the editors might have objected to? It’s not the Ross Broadcasting Company. Ross works for ABC. Ross/ABC released fake news. Goldston is also angry that 247,500 people (99%) made the decision to pillory ABC for reporting fake news. The news was fake. I’m disappointed that more people didn’t demand that a mainstream news media outlet do their job properly and verify ALL of the news stories that they publish.
The bottom line is that news was fake/false/wrong, and ABC is responsible for publishing fake news.
And you would be wrong. If the news is fake, the news is fake news. It doesn’t matter why the news media outlet’s story is fake/wrong/false/horseshit. I expect the news media outlets to verify their stories BEFORE they publish them.
Allowing any news media outlet to claim a fake news story was a mistake, or the result of a “late breaking story” situation, or not their responsibility because they only cut-and-paste what “everyone” was saying, doesn’t change the fact that the news was fake/wrong/false. If the story was fake/wrong/false, I expect the news media outlets to spend the time, money, and manpower to actually VERIFY their stories. YMMV.
It’s funny how the honest mistakes never work against the news media’s agenda - you don’t see fake news about something positive about a politician they don’t like.
That’s kind of my point. Fake news seems to push an agenda, and is therefore less likely to be honest mistakes.
Unless you have some counter-examples, where CNN or the New York Times or the Washington Post accidentally published something flattering about Trump or Roy Moore, and had to retract it.
One or two mistakes is not an “agenda” no matter how they skew. Repeating false stories day after day, hour after hour, in actual coordination with a specific political party is an “agenda”.
