The last election coverage was so totally devoid of criticism of Hillary that the credibility of major news outlets went out the window. Instead of cleaning up their act these same outlets are doubling down on stupid with the fault of fake news that elected Trump. They’re absolutely right except it was their lack of coverage of Hillary that made that happen. She should have been eliminated in the Primaries But their lack of coverage propelled her to the nomination. She was the one person capable of losing to Trump.
All you’re doing is perpetuating a meme designed to discredit sources of information you disagree with. Not only did it not work in the last election it discredits any news outlet that tries to do this. Public trust in main stream coverage is tanking.
Yes, if you continue on this trend of demonization of news outlets in place of real journalism you’re doomed.
The first part of this paragraph is just a horseshit personal attack which does not require a response.
The second part is frightening. Are you suggesting that if a person supports Hillary Clinton for President by simply holding a sign and posting that picture on Facebook, the person becomes a public figure? So, I can then photoshop the sign to whatever absurd language I want and it is not actionable?
Even if these people are considered public figures, they cannot be maliciously libeled. The Falwell case came out on Flynt’s side because it was such clear parody (nobody would really believe that Falwell was talking about having sex with his mother in an outhouse). These memes are different. The intent is to have people actually believe that these Trump supporters held a sign advocating for the return of white only rule. These people were defamed.
I keep hearing the fake news is the real news. whatever that means. I start life by not believing a word I hear or read. I’ll keep an open mind about whatever news but I never ever form a belief out of it. Too much bias, agenda’s, mis-information, informations overload, some truth, too much truth…etc to believe anything for certain. Though it appears to my 40yr old brain that the most alleged truthful things about reality seem to do nothing but either hurt feelings, cause disbelief or become ignored. So maybe those are the things I should believe in.
Well, what do you think “fighting ignorance” is all about?
The big problem is that fake political news are siblings or made and distributed by the same people that causes a lot of harm because they also make or spread fake health, science or sound policy news.
In a general sense, fighting ignorance is wonderful! But what exactly constitutes fake news isn’t clear to me from reading the thread. So my questions were two fold - what is the criteria that establishes that something is fake news? And second, how large of a problem is it in terms of actual harm?
And it’s even more worrisome when, in addition to these problems, real news and real journalists are under attack because the facts threaten a particular ideology, so you’ve got an increasing prominence of fake news combined with the discrediting of legitimate journalism:
Amanpour says several statements made in recent months by the U.S. president-elect — in which he has variously described journalists as “despicable and dishonest,” “crooked” and “liars” — can be the beginning of a dangerous political narrative …
… In her acceptance speech [of her award for achievement in the cause of press freedom], Amanpour said the current hostile climate for reporters in the United States, including the rise of so-called fake news, has led to an “existential crisis” for journalists, a “threat to the very relevance and usefulness of our profession.” … “We have to fight to defend facts right now,” she told CBC News, “in what’s being described as a ‘post-truth’ world.”
Actually, it’s always been a torrent. Think Medieval religion, think literature in Soviet Russia. But now the internet makes it easier to fight that torrent. Fact-checking is a click or two away. As others have already said, critical thinking is the key. People need to ask themselves, “How can I check that this is really true?”
In what way is the answer yes to the first? What is the criteria that makes something “fake news” that needs to be combatted? I read the first Vox and NPR links and this isn’t clear to me. Can you quote the part you are referencing?
As to the second question - the fact that fake news stories were shared a bunch of times doesn’t really indicate that it’s an actual problem or the magnitude of that problem.
Do you agree that there are actual facts? Do you agree that things either happened or they did not happen?
These are “news” stories that tell a story directly in contradiction with the facts. Did the pope really endorse Trump? How 'bout the Amish? Do you consider a news story that makes those claims to be valid? If so, what criteria did you use to distinguish those stories from real ones? If not, then do you actually believe that the Pope and the Amish endorsed trump?
Do you not have a problem with people believing things that are factually untrue, and they believe them because they read it in a story that they had no reason to believe was fake?
Do you not also recognize that people, when given and following false information, may make choices in their lives, or in their voting, that they would have made otherwise made entirely different if they were aware of the actual facts?
There is a debate to be had on exactly how much news is fake, vs how much is well meaning, but incorrect, and there is also a debate as to how much influence this fake news has had over our politics and over the lives of everyday people, but to insinuate that these are essentially just made up problems is in the same territory as the fake news itself.
I agree there are actual facts and that things either happened or did not. Is that the criteria you’d like to go with?
I’m not saying that these are made up problems. I’m inquiring as to the criteria that can be used to evaluate what constitutes fake news. Surely much of what is in The Enquirer is fake. It’s been around a long time so the fakeness doesn’t seem to be the problem.
Before any steps towards combatting a problem are taken, I think it’s important to define what the actual problem is, or at least parameters where the problem exists.
I have not read the Enquirer since I was a kid, so I don’t know if they have any sort of disclaimers about their stories not necessarily being factual. The Onion occasionally gets mistaken for real news too.
I don’t have any problem with fake news, so long as it is known to be such. I get a chuckle out of Onion articles from time to time, but I never mistake them for reality, I never allow them to inform my decisions.
The problem is, is that fake news gets mistaken for real news, and then people make decisions based on it. The bigger problem is, is if we have no common basis as to what reality is, whichever one of us is right, we can never come to any sort of agreements, or even have a rational discussion.
Quartz wrote: "As others have already said, critical thinking is the key. People need to ask themselves, “How can I check that this is really true?” " Put more simply, people need to grow BS detectors.
What about the very first sentence of the first link, “Fake news about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton had a big impact on the 2016 election”? Here’s the thing. One doesn’t have to accept, a priori, that the impact was necessarily decisive. One doesn’t necessarily have to accept that a professional con man and political know-nothing like Trump would never have won if more voters had been informed enough to understand that the majority of his campaign claims were either misleading or outright lies – claims that were heavily supported by a torrent of fake news. It’s even more fundamental than that.
One only has to accept the fact that in any society claiming to be capable of governing itself, a significant majority of voters have to know something about governance – have to have some understanding of the issues and policy proposals and be capable of some modicum of critical assessment of politicians’ claims against actual established facts. And it’s fairly obvious from the linked articles that there is enough fake news floating around today and enough voters believing it to significantly undermine these objectives and thus undermine democracy itself. Furthermore, as Christiane Amanpour describes in the final linked article, the rise in fake news is exacerbated by a corresponding attempt to undermine legitimate media, the fourth estate long recognized as a fundamental pillar of democracy.
Fake news is currently being successfully deployed in support of the right and especially the alt-right, but in the long run it doesn’t matter what one’s ideology is, because in the long run no one benefits when incompetent self-serving politicians are elected by the ignorant, except the politicians themselves and those who own them. Widespread belief in propagandized falsehoods is simply the hallmark of a dysfunctional democracy that creates dysfunctional governments.
This is the right time to point at science writer Peter Hadfield: AKA Potholer54:
From Peter Hadfield’s potholer54 video: Why the media screw up science Part 1: Sources
[QUOTE]
As I've shown, the internet is a great tool for tracking information back to its source and finding out how it's been altered but it's also good at disseminating bad information to millions.
It’s rather like a screwdriver: you can use it to take apart a complex bit of machinery to see how it works or why it’s gone wrong or you can stick it in your ear to see how far it goes before it meets resistance.
Unfortunately a lot of people would rather stick the screwdriver in there than undertake the simple act of undoing a screw.
In my climate change series I had the example of a claim that went viral over the internet that NASA said the Sun was responsible for global warming, millions of people believed it without doing the simplest thing: clicking the links back to the actual NASA’s story to read it for themselves. Once you follow the Chinese whispers back to their source you can see where along the chain the story was changed, sometimes the sources are incomplete and that does make them harder to trace.
One way to do this is to take a chunk of text that they’ve written because they nearly always copy and paste these things and put it in google to see where it leads. You’ll find the myth repeated many times but someone somewhere will give a source as to where it came from, but I would always be suspicious of anyone who’s trying to hide his source.
Why don’t they want you to know where their information comes from? A good
example is conservapedia’s webpage Counter-examples to an old earth because it’s a mixed bag the first counter example has a link that doesn’t even address the claim let alone supported the second one offers no source at all. So this brings me to the next point: what do we do when someone says “a study shows” or “according to a paper in the journal of whatever” will do exactly what I said at the beginning:
Ask for a source.
…
So how can a website make a claim that completely contradicts a paper that cited in support of it?
Answer: when the website is run by this guy [Cliff from Cheers] “it’s been proven time and time again that reincarnation breaks no physical laws”…
As we know when Cliff Clavin expanded his knowledge in the bar room at Cheers he had an audience of less than a dozen people these days cliff he would undoubtedly have his own website and disguise the fact that it’s written by a mail man. He can make it anonymous or he can give himself any title he likes and claim a specialist background he doesn’t have so when chips07 quotes Burner and Scotty’s as his sources he’s taking the word of the equivalent of a guy he met in a bar.
Ok, there’s a fancy website and it all sounds very plausible but remember: Cliff Clavin is only as good as his sources. chipster07 never actually read Burner’s paper and neither did the guy who runs the website or they both would have noticed that it says the complete opposite of what’s being claimed.
…
There’s a mechanism for documenting facts that has survived for 200 years, and has given us all the technological achievements we enjoy today, but we have to be willing to consult it. Not everyone can of course, some papers aren’t accessible without a subscription, most are difficult to understand. So my advice is to go to the most reliable media on science subjects which are the science magazines like Wired, Scientific American or New Scientist.
I obviously have to declare an interest because I used to work for the last one but from that experience I know that if I was doing a story on microbiology it would be edited by someone with a degree in microbiology a story on nuclear physics would be edited by the news editor who has a PhD in physics and a lot of New Scientist readers or people who are specialists in their field so the editorial staff know that any mistakes would be spotted and a new scientist reputation would be at stake.
Quality newspapers with science correspondent who actually have degrees in science are also a fairly reliable source of what’s coming out of the scientific journals.
Ultimately the accuracy of what we believe is our responsibility because where we source our information is entirely up to us. We can check the accuracy of stories ourselves and use reliable sources or we can believe the Cliff Clavins of this world…
[/QUOTE]
Ok, that goes to the issue of spotting fake news, now for the harm of not fighting that: I do recommend to read or see the interview Bill Mojers did to Neil deGrasse Tyson about the price our country will eventually pay as a nation for not defending science literacy or factual information or news.
And this is why fake news needs to be punished the same way as libel or slander. It has a tangible effect. The **effect **is what matters.
If someone spreads a fake-news story about Restaurant Brand X having fecal matter in their hamburgers, then that can result in an immense loss of revenue and business for Restaurant Brand X, and if a fake, defamatory news story about Candidate X goes viral, it could cost Candidate X millions of votes at the polls.
Freedom of the press and freedom of social media is one of the few areas in which freedom in America has gone far too far.
That does nothing to establish the criteria defining just what “fake news” actually is. Care to take a stab at it?
Is the above supposed to be aimed at the second prong I posited - if it is actually a problem and if so the magnitude? Well no, the cite doesn’t establish that either. From the Vox article, this is what they did:
Essentially they compared criteria but didn’t separate between favorable or unfavorable engagement. Consider the example of a factual error posted on this board - it’s very quick to get a reply correcting said error most of the time. But if **Chronos **busts out with entirely correct and accurate descriptions of String Theory well, it may not get as many replies because the people with the requisite background knowledge to weigh in intelligently are not that many. Does that mean that the thread full of corrections is somehow more influential with false information? No. My point is that those comments, shares, likes, or what have you could be mostly corrections or even ridicule.
This method does not do anything to measure if these are actual problems, and if they are, the magnitude of those problems.
Both my original two questions remain unaddressed. The criteria is important because without I have a hard time drawing distinctions between these fake news items that seem to be the focus and things like The Onion, The Enquirer, or even The Daily Show which billed itself as a fake news site.
All of the sudden fake news is a big issue… and MSM jumps in with a “j’acusse!” after years of dubious journalistic practices that have destroyed public confidence, leading people to search for alternatives.
Me thinks the MSM protests too much.