# What is fake news? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 6, 2017, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-fake-news/776456 "2017-01-06T16:05:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-fake-news/776456/21 "2017-01-06T18:00:54Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, exactly, but I’ll give you my quick reaction to the OP. You list a whole bunch of things that I have no doubt occasionally happen in all media, and then ask the rhetorical question “So what does that leave?”, creating (perhaps unintentionally) the impression that it doesn’t leave much. IOW, though it may just be my reading of it, I’m left with the impression that fake news isn’t that much of a problem. That’s my bad then – my point is that we need to keep a tight definition of what “fake news” is, because if it gets diluted, which it did almost immediately after Mark Zuckerberg made it a household term, then people _won’t_ see it for the problem it is. It’s a big problem, but it’s also very specific. It’s basically like spam; if someone’s talking about how to deal with spam and someone else is like, “Oh yeah, I hate spam, my uncle is always sending me this crap.” No, we’re not trying to deal with the content of your inbox, we’re just trying to target a handful of high-volume spammers. Same thing here, the fake news problem is pretty much limited to bogus websites that can be blacklisted once discovered. We can address that problem without lumping it in with the much bigger problem of “people believe stupid stuff.” ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-fake-news/776456/22 "2017-01-06T18:04:32Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > But what is fake news? Let’s look at what it isn’t. > > […] > > **Momentary lapses of integrity** - Legitimate journalists working for legitimate news organizations who, for whatever reason, make up stories about coming under RPG fire (for example). > > **Bad journalism** - Questionable sources, innuendo, opinion presented as fact, “just asking questions.” Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a girl in 1990? I don’t know, but it’s not fake news. > > **Genuine beliefs of things that aren’t true** - Conspiracy theories of all stripes. Well if “fake news” doesn’t include these things then it would be great to have a simple term that does. Any time someone’s reporting something to the masses that they could trivially debunk but choose not to (or even consciously choose to lie) then that’s something seriously wrong in my opinion. Calling the set of all these things “Bad journalism”, say, doesn’t quite catch it, because it might just evoke images of sensational headlines, or celebrity news. What Hannity et al do is a lot worse than that. I also don’t get why “momentary lapses” should get a pass (or why it was even mentioned). If I punch some random guy in the face, then sure, I can try to ask for lenient sentencing given that it is not typical behaviour for me, but I can’t say I haven’t committed an assault. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-fake-news/776456/23 "2017-01-06T18:05:50Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > Ran across a new one just now. > > Obama was awarded the Distinguished Public Service Medal. Recipients are determined by the Department of Defense with no input from the president, and it has been awarded to high-ranking public servants including the last two presidents. > > Now that’s what I call fake news. I just call that bad journalism – intentionally bad, but not fake. The basic story is true – Obama was given a medal by someone he himself appointed. The implication Brietbart is adding, that the award was somehow implicit in the appointment, or worse, directly ordered, is merely speculation that they’ve bundled up with the real news and tried to present as fact. I don’t want to defend this as something that should exist, but it existed before October 2016 when “fake news” became a thing, and nobody was really calling it fake news before that. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-fake-news/776456/24 "2017-01-06T18:08:42Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > I also don’t get why “momentary lapses” should get a pass (or why it was even mentioned). If I punch some random guy in the face, then sure, I can try to ask for lenient sentencing given that it is not typical behaviour for me, but I can’t say I haven’t committed an assault. I’m giving it a pass because people have taken to referring to major news organizations like NBC, CBS, CNN, as “fake news sources” because of Rathergate or that one time Brian Williams lied. They want to discredit entire histories of solid journalism based on single incidents. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-fake-news/776456/25 "2017-01-06T18:21:45Z")
IMHO, and based on the refusal to do basic corrections that are possible now thanks to the current technology, all the types of news described in the OP can and become fake news when no proper corrections are added by the ones reporting the news. Here is an example where even after the source was corrected by the misunderstood scientists the ones distributing the news make half assed and **still** misleading “corrections” to the reports they made: > [@](#): > > Other bloggers are well-known for having all their claims properly vetted but let’s face it, if the authors of the ACP paper hadn’t contacted Tom Nelson and if he hadn’t issued a retraction, Watts would still be under the impression that the Wry Heat blog was properly vetted and it would still be on the Watts’s Up With That blog. > > Actually the only clue that the whole thing is bunkum its a small note there saying it has an error… One error? And you have to scroll down to the update to find out that the error is the entire thing… maybe all… maybe not… According to this letter from Duhamel which is also printed in the update it could be “censorship or duplicitous scientists going back on what they wrote in the paper”. Says the man who couldn’t understand the paper… > > **Anthony, why not do what Tom Nelson did and cross out the bits of your story that were wrong so that people can still see what was originally written but they’ll understand it was all nonsense? They won’t do what this guy did [A screen shot of a poster posting the now clearly fake news] and copy the Watt’s Up With That page a year later without any indication that the whole thing is baloney?** > > I’ve been warning about the danger of relying on these bloggers for years but thanks to the recent presidential election this warning has finally gone mainstream. We’ve seen fake news stories about the two candidates and the phrase post truth applied to the world of social media, but it’s not just funny sites that are disseminating fake news; it’s far more widespread than a blogger that makes a mistake, whether intentionally or through sloppy research or just plain ignorance; his blog is copied by another blogger and copied by another blogger until millions of people believe it. > > This is fake news being passed around by people who can’t be bothered to check it so you can’t trust the people who generate this fake news to get it right or to correct it. It’s up to us to do that by checking where these stories come from when they land on Twitter or Facebook and it’s not always from Macedonia… The result is then a “calcification” or a canonization of bad pieces of information that are then repeated forever in their bubble of information. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-fake-news/776456/26 "2017-01-06T18:24:15Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > The original Pizzagate tweet reported that the New York City Police department while investigat discovered the existence of a pedophilia ring linked to members of the Democratic Party while investigating Podesta’s emails. This was a factually incorrect claim with no basis in reality. Therefore I have no reason to believe that creator of this tweet actually believed it was true. Far more likely he willfully lied in hopes that it would go viral and defame the party and candidate that he opposed. This is different from most conspiracy theories which start with a fact but then misinterpret the implications. For example there really was an UFO that crashed around Roswell NM in 1947 it just wasn’t an extraterrestrial. The World trade center buildings really did collapse in a way that resembled to some a controlled demolition. etc. > While its true Pizzagate didn’t have a profit motive, I think that the motive of defaming or discrediting a disliked individual or group, or promoting an ideological viewpoint are sufficient to count as fake news provided that the creator of said news willfully lied in its creation. _-Megyn Kelly Interview Comet Ping Pong Restaurant Owner James Alefantis Pizzagate Conspiracy_ https://www.youtube.com/embed/TG3k2Bv0jrI?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque&list=PL9-NHdI_woQBqtXY3nTlHlAe3UsZIflZh At 01:08 Kelly to talk about pediphile and sex ring followed by a photo, at 01:24, Alefantis had posted on his/Comet’s facebook page. A photo of a child, his godchild, with her hands taped to a table in his resturant. A photo that Alefantis says was on his facebook page for a year and a half. A photo that Alefantis is/was proud to display. And Alefantis is shocked that someone on the internet would actually object to a photo of a child in restraints. :rolleyes: The pizzagate story jumped from social media to the LSM, those media outlets which couldn’t be bothered to provide all of the facts of the story. But they couldn’t/wouldn’t provide the Who, What, Why, Where, and When to their viewers/readers. What would be the point when it’s obvious that the viewers/readers aren’t demanding that the news media outlets provide the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It appears that some mope with a gun finally decided to check out this story for himself. For the sake of the children, of course. :rolleyes: Fake news thrives in an environment where the viewer/reader can’t trust the main stream news outfits. Imagine a world where you could turn to an MSNBC and trust them to tell you the whole truth all of the time. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-fake-news/776456/27 "2017-01-06T18:33:01Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > I just call that bad journalism – intentionally bad, but not fake. The basic story is true – Obama was given a medal by someone he himself appointed. The implication Brietbart is adding, that the award was somehow implicit in the appointment, or worse, directly ordered, is merely speculation that they’ve bundled up with the real news and tried to present as fact. > > I don’t want to defend this as something that should exist, but it existed before October 2016 when “fake news” became a thing, and nobody was really calling it fake news before that. Fake news it any news that isn’t true. People want to differentiate the various types of fake news but that only legitimizes some types of fake news. It’s not OK for news outlets to make mistakes. It’s understandable, but it’s not OK. It’s not OK for news outlets to be fooled by unverified reports. That’s not understandable. That’s just horseshit reporting. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-fake-news/776456/28 "2017-01-06T18:35:26Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > I’m giving it a pass because people have taken to referring to major news organizations like NBC, CBS, CNN, as “fake news sources” because of Rathergate or that one time Brian Williams lied. They want to discredit entire histories of solid journalism based on single incidents. I agree. Incidentally, my example and my point is that real news sources of information do acknowledge errors and the real news people are reprimanded or worse, others should contrast that with very dubious sources were the “errors” are not ever acknowledged. Leading to what I call the poisoning of the source, where debunked information is still curated and when people that think they are looking at a valid source of info are in reality just reading the never corrected information and continue to be misled and to mislead others. Rather did make a big mistake and CBS decided to accept his resignation and many others were terminated. > **[Killian documents controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy)** > > The Killian documents controversy (also referred to as Memogate or Rathergate) involved six documents containing allegations about President George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard in 1972–73, allegedly typed in 1973. Dan Rather presented four of these documents as authentic in a 60 Minutes II broadcast aired by CBS on September 8, 2004, less than two months before the 2004 presidential election, but it was later found that CBS had failed to authenticate them. S CBS News produc... > [@](#): > > CBS terminated Mary Mapes and demanded the resignations of 60 Minutes Wednesday Executive Producer Josh Howard and Howard’s top deputy, Senior Broadcast Producer Mary Murphy, as well as Senior Vice President Betsy West, who had been in charge of all prime time newscasts. Murphy and West resigned on February 25, 2005,[116] and after settling a legal dispute regarding his level of responsibility for the segment, Josh Howard resigned on March 25, 2005.[117] > > Dan Rather also resigned as anchorman in 2005. It is unclear whether or not Rather’s retirement was directly caused by this incident, although many believe that he had to step down a year earlier than planned.[118] Les Moonves, CEO of CBS, stated “Dan Rather has already apologized for the segment and taken responsibility for his part in the broadcast. He voluntarily moved to set a date to step down from the ‘CBS Evening News’ in March of 2005.” He added, “We believe any further action would not be appropriate.”[119] Yep, that is what happens among sources that take accuracy seriously. By contrast real weasels like James Okeefe are not sacked for repeatedly passing bad pieces of information to the public **repeatedly**. In fact “reporters” like him are usually kept in the payroll or used again by the likes of Breitbart and Fox. ---
**Author:** ![Donpeyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a4c791/32.png) [@Donpeyote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donpeyote)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-fake-news/776456/29 "2017-01-06T19:18:54Z")
Narrative following twaddle ? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-fake-news/776456/30 "2017-01-06T20:07:47Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > The original Pizzagate tweet reported that the New York City Police department while investigat discovered the existence of a pedophilia ring linked to members of the Democratic Party while investigating Podesta’s emails. This was a factually incorrect claim with no basis in reality. Therefore I have no reason to believe that creator of this tweet actually believed it was true. Far more likely he willfully lied in hopes that it would go viral and defame the party and candidate that he opposed. This is different from most conspiracy theories which start with a fact but then misinterpret the implications. For example there really was an UFO that crashed around Roswell NM in 1947 it just wasn’t an extraterrestrial. The World trade center buildings really did collapse in a way that resembled to some a controlled demolition. etc. I don’t think you’re treating the different stories in the same manner. If you focus on all the details of the stories, then all contain blatantly false components. If you focus on whether there is some kernel of validity to some of it, then all do. There’s no difference. This is part of the problem with the focus on “fake news”. It’s now in vogue as a “thing”, and it’s therefore an easy label to apply to stories that you don’t like. But sometimes it’s just stories that you don’t like. (No matter what the justification. All the stories you cite are ridiculous conspiracy theories, and in some versions contain outright false/misleading facts. But the ultimate conclusion is a matter of opinion.) My own definition of “fake news” is where the core facts (as opposed to ancillary and possibly sensational details) are objectively false (as opposed to being farfetched conclusions and matters of opinion). These conditions will generally come about when people mistakenly assume Onion (or similar) articles are real, or when political partisans make stuff up. Some of these might eventually find their way into mainstream news reports, and they’re still “fake news”. But a media organization reporting on something based on shoddy reporting or people passing on far-fetched conspiracy speculation is not “fake news”, or at any rate is not in the same category, whatever you might call it. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-fake-news/776456/31 "2017-01-06T20:28:08Z")
One person’s fake news story is another’s Onion article accidentally taken seriously. I think it’s pretty difficult to differentiate the two in an actionable way really. Imagine any of the fake news stories that have been complained about as if they originated under the banner of The Onion and I think the magnitude of the complaints would drop tremendously. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-fake-news/776456/32 "2017-01-06T20:51:38Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > I’m not sure what to call the Enquirer but I think it’s safe to say they also don’t expect their stories to be taken as real news. I hope. Please. Some of their stories are set up as reality, although I’m not sure any of them are. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2017, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-fake-news/776456/33 "2017-01-07T01:24:26Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > I’m not sure what to call the Enquirer but I think it’s safe to say they also don’t expect their stories to be taken as real news. I hope. Please. I think you’re thinking of the late, lamented _Weekly World News._ The _National Enquirer_ is mainly a gossip rag. And they’re known for reporting things that turn out to be true, and before other news outlets are willing to touch them. If they are manufacturing stories, that is a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2017, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-fake-news/776456/34 "2017-01-07T01:50:35Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > I think you’re thinking of the late, lamented _Weekly World News._ > > The _National Enquirer_ is mainly a gossip rag. And they’re known for reporting things that turn out to be true, and before other news outlets are willing to touch them. If they are manufacturing stories, that is a problem. They did break that John Edwards scandal which destroyed his political career. It shocked me at the time because up to that point I’d disregarded the Enquirer as useless tripe, and then they reveal a major news story which turns out to actually be true. My understanding is that “fake news” consists of deliberately false, salacious stories meant as hoaxes and click bait done on sites that pretend to be real news sources (often done up to look like they’re associated with print newspapers and television news stations), with no disclaimers or other signs that it’s fabricated aside from information that can’t be corroborated with a reliable source. This excludes conspiracy sites, propoganda pages, or sites that give news with a political slant or excessive editorialism. And yes, these sites are both excessively prevalent and are a fairly recent phenomenon, which is why there is also a new term for them. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2017, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-fake-news/776456/35 "2017-01-07T03:23:53Z")
Isn’t “fake news” a phrase Jon Stewart used for The Daily Show? If you want a word specifically for completely fraudulent clickbait, you may need to be more specific. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2017, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-fake-news/776456/36 "2017-01-08T22:42:57Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Fake news it any news that isn’t true. People want to differentiate the various types of fake news but that only legitimizes some types of fake news. It’s not OK for news outlets to make mistakes. It’s understandable, but it’s not OK. It’s not OK for news outlets to be fooled by unverified reports. That’s not understandable. That’s just horseshit reporting. Except that’s not what we’re talking about. There is a clear, _unsubtle_ difference between, say, a news source with a history of solid reporting getting the facts wrong on a story or falling for a hoax, and a non-reputable trumped-up internet blog inventing “news” out of whole cloth. The latter is what people mean when they talk about “fake news”. The only reason I can think of to spread the definition this broadly is, well, _this:_ > [@steronz](#): > > I’m giving it a pass because people have taken to referring to major news organizations like NBC, CBS, CNN, as “fake news sources” because of Rathergate or that one time Brian Williams lied. They want to discredit entire histories of solid journalism based on single incidents. Seriously, if you want to stretch fake news that broadly, what term would you use to describe sites like WTOE 5 and papers like the National Enquirer, who intentionally spread dishonest and false news created out of whole cloth? Here’s a quick litmus test to determine whether or not your approach to news makes any sense whatsoever. Can you see the substantial differences between Dan Rather and the spunkbubble who published the article about the pope endorsing Donald Trump, or do they both just produce fake news? Can you see the substantial differences between CNBC and WTOE5 News or are they both just fake news sources? If not, you’ve fallen into the trap of cynically assuming that because everything is shit, everything is _equally_ shit. So that if your mechanic gets a spark plug wrong once, you might as well let a rabid gorilla try to fix your car. Then again, I have little doubt that there are those who are _intentionally_ pushing that cynical, inane line of logic - it is, after all, more or less exactly the logic that could lead an otherwise rational, skeptical person to vote for Donald Trump. > [@doorhinge](#): > > The pizzagate story jumped from social media to the LSM, those media outlets which couldn’t be bothered to provide all of the facts of the story. But they couldn’t/wouldn’t provide the Who, What, Why, Where, and When to their viewers/readers. What would be the point when it’s obvious that the viewers/readers aren’t demanding that the news media outlets provide the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The whole truth? The _whole_ truth? Dude, the “whole truth” about Pizzagate is that it’s an insane, baseless conspiracy theory dreamed up by madmen in a desperate attempt to smear Hillary Clinton to people _just as deranged as they are_, and the only reason it became newsworthy in the first place is that some nutjob with a gun took it seriously! That’s the whole truth. There’s no reason to get into the reasoning behind it, any more than there is reason to get into the reasoning behind the people who believe that Barack Obama is a secretly gay Kenyan Muslim - they’re _fucking crazy people_, and getting into their “reasoning” is giving them entirely too much credit. The only reason they should be exposed at a national level is when they do, well, something like that, _to mock and shame them_, and remind people why believing insane conspiracy theories is dangerous. So when you say this: > [@](#): > > Fake news thrives in an environment where the viewer/reader can’t trust the main stream news outfits. Imagine a world where you could turn to an MSNBC and trust them to tell you the whole truth all of the time. I have _no idea_ what it’s supposed to have to do with the rest of your post. What, are you complaining that MSNBC didn’t waste everyone’s time going over the details of this insane conspiracy theory and why it’s wrong? Should they also do this with 9/11 truthers, birthers, creationists, flat earthers, climate denialists, and David Icke? For someone allegedly bemoaning the fact that you can’t trust the mainstream media, you are doing everything in your power to discredit them on _incredibly_ spurious grounds. You’re the one here pretending that there’s some equivalency between MSNBC and, say, Breitbart. That’s _nonsense_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-fake-news/776456.md?page=1)