You'll get a belly rub with that fruble!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Examples of "fake news"?
- Thread starter leibowde84
- Start date
I'm not sure if it qualifies as "fake news," although I've noticed that sometimes the press could be reporting actual facts, yet placing a much greater significance on events than what might actually be. I think it's when a news organization decides what is "important" enough to be the top story, as opposed to stories which are given less significance or ignored altogether because someone decided it wasn't important enough.
Something that's blatantly false or fake - that will be found out soon enough. It's usually because these stories are sent to millions of people all at once, and then it takes time to look at other sources to eventually find it's a hoax.
But if nothing else, at least it might encourage news outlets to be more forthcoming regarding their sources. We often hear of heroic journalists going to jail to protect their sources, but then how can anyone be certain that an "unnamed source" isn't totally made up?
Something that's blatantly false or fake - that will be found out soon enough. It's usually because these stories are sent to millions of people all at once, and then it takes time to look at other sources to eventually find it's a hoax.
But if nothing else, at least it might encourage news outlets to be more forthcoming regarding their sources. We often hear of heroic journalists going to jail to protect their sources, but then how can anyone be certain that an "unnamed source" isn't totally made up?
Yeah but... but... they are the bad guys!
I agree and I am afraid I have not been clear on my stance, so I will try again. (Note, this might expand beyond the OP.)
I am always cautious of governments who seek to undermine the validity of news sources that are critical of them, even if they (the news outlets) are right. Investigative journalism, in my opinion, is important. So, I am suspicious when a government official seeks to take stabs at a news source not because of it's validity, but because they stand to have something to lose. This goes for any politician, by the way.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
You can expect mainstream media to be about as honest as mainstream media, which despite all the hate people give that notion, is what I actually like about it, because I can trust it to be that much. It is these no name sites on the Internet that I have no way of knowing how truthful they are, that I distrust the most.
I recently learned the phrase "advocacy journalism". We might think of op-eds as an example of advocacy journalism. My conclusion is that advocacy journalism HAS a bias, but they are upfront about it, and they can and should be held to high journalistic standards. This is opposed to a lot of the MSM that seems to me has a bias, but isn't honest about it.
Right here on RF an advocacy journalist named Ezra Levant has come to my attention. I've watched a few of his reports. He's CLEARLY got an agenda. But it also strikes me that his reports are chock full of factual claims. He's sticking his arse out in ways I the MSM would. I typically find the MSM to be relatively fact-free mush.
Claiming to receive congratulation phone calls the Leader of the By Scouts and the Mexican President when no such phone calls nor even the conversations never took place. "Fake News" and liar liar pants on fire.
It may be old but I'm old and don't care. My definition is right and all others are fake.
Oooooo....."fake definitions" deserves a thread of its own!
I'm equally cautious, but not just of governments, since there are large corporations and other organizations which may also fall under criticism. But I don't automatically assume that all investigative journalism or criticism from the press is always done for noble or honorable reasons. They are at an equal level with all the other movers and shakers of power in our society. They are a business, just like any other business.
I can see where some might have reason to attack the validity of news sources, not necessarily because they're wrong, but if they appear inconsistent in their criticisms of politicians. Sometimes they seem to play favorites and give a pass to some politicians' wrongdoing while attacking others. Some might see that as unfair and hypocritical. It might also be indicative of a media outlet with less than honorable intentions, so if it's another case of the rats investigating the mice, then I see nothing wrong with pointing that out. The press has something to lose too, and they have just as much of a stake in the political system as any other industry or special interest group.
One thing that strikes me about the general way that news is reported, particularly when it comes to investigative journalism and governmental wrongdoing, they often tend to present it by focusing on specific individuals and personalities, which makes it seem like a deliberate attempt to make it appear that it's "only a few bad apples," while implying that the rest of the organization is clean. They rarely, if ever, attack the government or political system as a whole, but they'll keep up the narrative of "bad apple" after "bad apple," while showing deliberate reluctance at looking at the big picture and giving the public a clearer idea as to where all these "bad apples" come from. The press only looks at symptoms, without wanting to put it all together and come up with any meaningful perspective on the root of our nation's problems.
I think it's a good thing to try to fathom the reasons for support of Trump, to bring it out into the light of day, and to try to make supporters defend their support. I supprt your efforts, leibowde.
Notanumber
A Free Man
Fortunately, we have an antidote for fake news here in the UK.
BBC Racist Job advert, Olly Murs is not the enemy and EU Blackmail.
The question is how long will it last.
BBC Racist Job advert, Olly Murs is not the enemy and EU Blackmail.
The question is how long will it last.
Yerda
Veteran Member
We should be careful to separate fake news from bad journalism. Gossip, speculation and so on are pretty common but fake news should be recognised as a different kind of beasty.
Fake news can be recognised by its similarity to hoax. By that accounting it generally doesn't appear in the mainstream press. It tends to be mocked up websites and spread on social media. What Trump calls fake news is generally just news he doesn't like. A good example is the report that Rex Tillerson described Trump as a moron or something to that effect. If the author was reporting a source with a credible claim to have heard it or heard of it then it was just really just low quality news (poor journalism).
A good example of fake news was the story that Obama had banned the national anthem from all sporting events that was fizzing around a little while back.
Yerda
Veteran Member
We used to be able to rely on fact-checkers until supporters of certain campaigns decided that fact-checking was inconvenient.
But only if those fact checkers were being critical of their candidate.
PS: My candidate was perfect and no amount of fact checking will disrupt that! (Or something like that.)