Fake & Other News

[Revoltingest]

Too many things are being called "fake news" these days.
It's a fun term to demonize any source we don't like,
but the term is sliding into objective uselessness.
Let's see if we can fix that.
I propose categorizing types of news out there, & what characterizes them.....

1) Fake news
Authors know it's false.
Typically published to serve an agenda, eg, political, harassment, mischief.
(This doesn't include those who actually believe what they offer, eg, conspiracy theorists.)

2) Propaganda
Might be true, unknowingly false, or even mythical.
Typically agenda driven coverage which could be....
- Avoiding coverage of relevant but discomforting info.
- Enhancing coverage of bias confirming info, usually to make the opposition look bad.
- Inventing speculative news, eg, NPR's 'investigating' Trump's being the next Hitler.

3) Erroneous news
Sometimes an organization just gets the facts utterly wrong.
- Sloppy biased journalism in a rush to publish what they want to believe, eg, Rolling Stone's UVA rape story.
- A rogue journalist within the organization fabricates a story, eg, NYT's Jayson Blair.
- Misquoting someone based upon popular misquotes which aren't checked, eg,
Al Gore's "I invented the internet."
Sarah Palin's "I can see Russia from my house.".

4) Spin
- Using loaded language to create an emotional impression serving the author's agenda.
- Using artful language to influence weighting of facts.

5) Quality news
It's fair, factual, & useful.
No one is misled. (But of course, wrong inferences can always be made.)

There will be combinations & overlapping.
Anything to add?

 

[chinu]

India brought his old currency back.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Cenk Uygur laying down some truth

We should be very concerned when this whole fake news hoopla starts getting brought into legislation.

Where was all this coverage of fake news during the election cycle? It didn't exist. And now the Democrats are in denial over why they lost and have to resort to this fake news story. Of course there is such a thing as 'fake news', but the way the media has blown it out of proportions and proposing it as a major factor in the election result is just absurd.

 

[Revoltingest]

Cenk Uygur laying down some truth

We should be very concerned when this whole fake news hoopla starts getting brought into legislation.

Where was all this coverage of fake news during the election cycle? It didn't exist. And now the Democrats are in denial over why they lost and have to resort to this fake news story. Of course there is such a thing as 'fake news', but the way the media has blown it out of proportions and proposing it as a major factor in the election result is just absurd.

The "fake news" cry is just like the "vast right wing conspiracy", ie, an excuse for personal failure.

 

[Quetzal]

I always huddled "fake news" and propaganda together. Now, were there fake news stories about the candidates over the election? You bet. What is important, however, is we avoid the mentality you are describing, @Revoltingest. "This does't agree/fit my narrative... it MUST be fake!"

 

[Revoltingest]

I always huddled "fake news" and propaganda together. Now, were there fake news stories about the candidates over the election? You bet. What is important, however, is we avoid the mentality you are describing, @Revoltingest. "This does't agree/fit my narrative... it MUST be fake!"

Fake post!

 

[Quetzal]

Fake post!

YOUR POST ABOUT MY FAKE POST IS FAKE!

 

[Quetzal]

We should be very concerned when this whole fake news hoopla starts getting brought into legislation.

Where was all this coverage of fake news during the election cycle? It didn't exist. And now the Democrats are in denial over why they lost and have to resort to this fake news story. Of course there is such a thing as 'fake news', but the way the media has blown it out of proportions and proposing it as a major factor in the election result is just absurd.

I agree. While I am sure it did exist to some extent, I am not convinced it was some sort of conspiracy- hang on, phone is ringing.

Hello?... yes... agreeing with conservatives... I didn't mean to... no, no it-.... it won't happen again... yes i'll fix it... yes... good bye.

This thread is a conspiracy and Hillary is the bestest ever... and... erm *checks note card* and Trump is the worstest thing to ever happen to anything. The sky is falling and you are all ugly.

 

[tytlyf]

Here's some major propaganda examples used by RW media this election season.

-Benghazi
-Email server
-Clinton foundation
-Pay for play
-Immigration
-Climate change

There was no wrong doing in any of these cases. But millions of people are running around voting based on falsehoods. That's dangerous.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I think the problem here is that our current president elect lied far more than any other candidate in the election, and he was rewarded for it.

Did millions vote illegally in the election? Did China invent the global warming hoax to destroy US manufacturing? Was Obama born in Kenya?

There is a difference between spin and flagrant lying. Why this is an issue NOW is because we fairly elected someone who didn't seem to care about even the appearance of honesty.

What happens next year in state or local elections? Federal midterms?

How many future races are going to try to emulate his tactics in their next elections?

Democracy requires some attempt at media honesty. You can argue that the NYT or NPR has a spin, or Fox has a spin, or that these organization misrepresent some aspect of what's true (not evenly on each side, but that's another story) but neither outright lie.

Fake news feels worse now, because of who our president elect is, and how he uses lies as a political tactic that should be obvious to everyone. . . but somehow it isn't.

That is the crisis.

Sure, is fake news presently an overwhelming problem. . . I'd say no. You're probably right to put it in some perspective.

But for how long?

Our president elect makes stuff up. . . And we aren't supposed to worry about it. Wild crazy stuff, as a way to move the needle and get us to accept this as the new normal.

But it's not normal. We cannot accept this, or belittle the impact it may have on our future as a country.

You think this is gong to go away? The media is right to address it now.

EDIT: If a Muslim shoots up a building, I except the Muslim community to stand up and condemn it. If a Christian blows up a clinic, I expect the Christian community to condemn it.

And if a right wing candidate blatantly lies, I expect the right wing media to outright condemn it.

Any RWM organization that fails to do so, or unthinkably defends the lies, should lose credibility in your eyes.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think the problem here is that our current president elect lied far more than any other candidate in the election, and he was rewarded for it.

Did millions vote illegally in the election? Did China invent the global warming hoax to destroy US manufacturing? Was Obama born in Kenya?

There is a difference between spin and flagrant lying. Why this is an issue NOW is because we fairly elected someone who didn't seem to care about even the appearance of honesty.

What happens next year in state or local elections? Federal midterms?

How many future races are going to try to emulate his tactics in their next elections?

Democracy requires some attempt at media honesty. You can argue that the NYT or NPR has a spin, or Fox has a spin, or that these organization misrepresent some aspect of what's true (not evenly on each side, but that's another story) but neither outright lie.

Fake news feels worse now, because of who our president elect is, and how he uses lies as a political tactic that should be obvious to everyone. . . but somehow it isn't.

That is the crisis.

Sure, is fake news presently an overwhelming problem. . . I'd say no. You're probably right to put it in some perspective.

But for how long?

Our president elect makes stuff up. . . And we aren't supposed to worry about it. Wild crazy stuff, as a way to move the needle and get us to accept this as the new normal.

But it's not normal. We cannot accept this, or belittle the impact it may have on our future as a country.

You think this is gong to go away? The media is right to address it now.

EDIT: If a Muslim shoots up a building, I except the Muslim community to stand up and condemn it. If a Christian blows up a clinic, I expect the Christian community to condemn it.

And if a right wing candidate blatantly lies, I expect the right wing media to outright condemn it.

Any RWM organization that fails to do so, or unthinkably defends the lies, should lose credibility in your eyes.

Many believe Trump lied.
Many believe Hillary lied.
I'm sure both actually did at times.
Media minions will take sides for one or the other.
This is how politics has always been, & always will be.
Nothing new under the Sun.
But we can consume news with useful skepticism.

 

[sun rise]

Many believe Trump lied.
Many believe Hillary lied.
I'm sure both actually did at times.
Media minions will take sides for one or the other.
This is how politics has always been, & always will be.
Nothing new under the Sun.
But we can consume news with useful skepticism.

Outside of perhaps 512 people, everyone lies. The question is how bad and how often. When you have someone whose a champion liar like trump, it's false equivalence to say that someone else lies because quantity and quality is involved.

I've told people things thinking it was accurate only to find out it was a mistake. That's different from deliberately lying to serve power lust or other base motives.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think the motivation for sensationalized and embellished news stories lies in how it's structured.

The procurement of revenue and the ratings system.

Its pretty much a race to outdo each other at the expense of truth and accuracy of events coupled with a lack of journalistic integrity.

 

[ShivaFan]

Now that horrible Pope is doing the "fake news" gig! He says today all of us Merry Trumpters are guilty of "the sin of fake news"! He is parroting Hillary's stupid crap as an excuse for being a loser!

Can this guy shut up already? He has done more damage to the Catholic Church than Nancy Pelosi.

Hey, Pope, here's my gig, YOU'RE FIRED! You're wrecking Christmas! Please listen to Linus in Charlie Brown's Christmas, he's the REAL Pope! You're a FAKE!

If you want to do SOMETHING POSITIVE for the Catholic Church, then EXCOMMUNICATE NANCY PELOSI for God's sake instead of being Hillary's little old man! STAND UP and DEFEND Geert Wilders! ENDORSE Marine Le Pen!

Do SOMETHING good, otherwise resign and move to Cuba!

Until then, Linus is MY "POPE" and don't you DARE call him fake!

 

[Revoltingest]

Outside of perhaps 512 people, everyone lies

Hmmm.....exactly 2 to the 9th power....this must mean something.

. The question is how bad and how often. When you have someone whose a champion liar like trump, it's false equivalence to say that someone else lies because quantity and quality is involved.

I was wondering when the first "false equivalency" deflection would arise.
You win the prize!
Have you actually verified that all the lies you claim were intentional misrepresentation?
No?
I thought not.
'Too many (particularly on the left) love to label anything they disagree with as a "lie".

Btw, the fact that Hillary is a corrupt liar is still lurking out there.

I've told people things thinking it was accurate only to find out it was a mistake. That's different from deliberately lying to serve power lust or other base motives.

If you're a Republican, then you lied.
Don't blame me......them's the rules!

 

[Acim]

Too many things are being called "fake news" these days.
It's a fun term to demonize any source we don't like,
but the term is sliding into objective uselessness.
Let's see if we can fix that.
I propose categorizing types of news out there, & what characterizes them.....

1) Fake news
Authors know it's false.
Typically published to serve an agenda, eg, political, harassment, mischief.
(This doesn't include those who actually believe what they offer, eg, conspiracy theorists.)

2) Propaganda
Might be true, unknowingly false, or even mythical.
Typically agenda driven coverage which could be....
- Avoiding coverage of relevant but discomforting info.
- Enhancing coverage of bias confirming info, usually to make the opposition look bad.
- Inventing speculative news, eg, NPR's 'investigating' Trump's being the next Hitler.

3) Erroneous news
Sometimes an organization just gets the facts utterly wrong.
- Sloppy biased journalism in a rush to publish what they want to believe, eg, Rolling Stone's UVA rape story.
- A rogue journalist within the organization fabricates a story, eg, NYT's Jayson Blair.
- Misquoting someone based upon popular misquotes which aren't checked, eg,
Al Gore's "I invented the internet."
Sarah Palin's "I can see Russia from my house.".

4) Spin
- Using loaded language to create an emotional impression serving the author's agenda.
- Using artful language to influence weighting of facts.

5) Quality news
It's fair, factual, & useful.
No one is misled. (But of course, wrong inferences can always be made.)

There will be combinations & overlapping.
Anything to add?

How about examples of each? To help with understanding, or to get into the (inevitable) debate. I see you have 'e.g.' wording, but I'm thinking actual links of news stories that exist right now.

Was thinking yesterday about news that reports "eCigs explode" and how they are written. Again, this topic (eCigs) is one I'm quite familiar with. Of all cases I'm familiar with (from news) about such explosions, it is either always the case, or most often the case, that this explosion is due to user error, but in almost all of the stories written (initially about such incidences) it is never communicated as user error.

So, I can see such news as propaganda, and did before the concept of 'fake news' became so popular (recently). Yet, given how that term is spun, I also see it as fake news, especially since I do think authors of some of the stories are publishing it to serve an agenda, and know what they are conveying is false (that the devices can all on their own just explode).

Prior to the concept of fake news becoming so popular, I would've thought articles such as those found in The Onion would be 'best considerations of fake news.' Now with the concept where it is, I admittedly am not sure what the term means. So much so, that I see lots of overlap in the way you've laid things out. Spin, strikes me as knowingly creating a false/fake impression, but doing so to obtain / perpetuate confirmation bias.

Erroneous news and quality news strike me as having a fine line, and is where I see journalism being an art, or plausibly a science. Such that quality news could be written to be 'fair, factual and useful' but due to spin, could not accurately achieve presentation of other sides, or in such presentations engage in erroneous reporting. Because of the popularity again around fake news, I'm now at a point where it's really challenging to identify quality news, without realizing the same source (publishers / news outlet) likely has a whole bunch of erroneous news items, or erroneous type reporting within quality news stories. If that makes sense. IOW, I almost think quality news is currently mythological.

 

[Acim]

Here's some major propaganda examples used by RW media this election season.

-Benghazi
-Email server
-Clinton foundation
-Pay for play
-Immigration
-Climate change

There was no wrong doing in any of these cases. But millions of people are running around voting based on falsehoods. That's dangerous.

See, this is good example of counter spin. The idea of no wrongdoing in any of these cases is obviously spin.

With Benghazi, it was initially about a video led to the violence, and that was perpetuated. The video explanation nows strikes me as fake news, but also propaganda, designed to say nothing about Obama policies or administration (personnel) ought to be held responsible for that event, and instead let us all condemn this video/video maker as the reason such a horrible event even took place. Oh, and please re-elect Obama in a couple months! Here on the Right, we understand that to be 'wrongdoing.' And as long as that wrongdoing isn't admitted to, then it just means for anti-Left people to probe further and further into all possible things leading up to and including the day of the event to be deemed open season in terms of political attacks on the current (Obama) administration. Obviously the Left will disdain that approach. To me, it was similar to how some anti-Right people sought to blame Bush for 9/11 and then all subsequent actions by Bush as a response to 9/11 were filtered through anti-Right's memes to see Bush as the wrong leader for such causes, hence why Obama, who would pull all American troops home and end such useless wars, was seen as viable alternative to the 2008 candidates on the Right who thought some slight changes are necessary, but pulling troops out would be grave mistake.

I'm pretty sure I could go through entire list and find wrongdoing in each. Email serve and Pay-for-play/Clinton foundation would be easy, the other two are so broad that to think there's no such thing as wrong-doing under those topics is like saying American Military has in no point of its existence ever been involved in wrongdoing. It's that preposterous of a claim.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Like most information, people will take what's "real," to generally be whatever validates and supports their perspective, and what's ""fake," to be whatever does the opposite. Critical thinking skills and an internal sense of consistency and honesty are the only real variables which counter this. Unfortunately, our culture doesn't really value, promote, or create an environment conducive to any of these things.

It's ironic that the creation and growth of the internet - an unprecedented tool for accessing information - has seemed to actually result in people being less objectively informed, and certainly not any more knowledgeable. Of course, the information aspect of the internet has dwindled in comparison to the "social" media aspect.

 

[sun rise]

Hmmm.....exactly 2 to the 9th power....this must mean something.

I was wondering when the first "false equivalency" deflection would arise.
You win the prize!
Have you actually verified that all the lies you claim were intentional misrepresentation?
No?
I thought not.
'Too many (particularly on the left) love to label anything they disagree with as a "lie".

Btw, the fact that Hillary is a corrupt liar is still lurking out there.

If you're a Republican, then you lied.
Don't blame me......them's the rules!

Prove these are wrong All statements involving Donald Trump | PolitiFact -

And don't go "post fact" but actually prove that he did not say what he said and that they were actually true and prove that some on the left lie as much as he does.

It's not about left and right, many on the right are as truthful as many on the left.

Trump is in a class by himself as a liar.

 

[Wu Wei]

I was just wondering....what if this story about there being fake news stories is fake?