Fake & Other News

[JakofHearts]

Because of this last US election cycle, it became quite clear that a number of news media were just propaganda rags for the globalist establishment. They pretty much lost all credibility with the majority of Americans, it's little wonder why some continue to listen to them. (Only 6% trust mainstream media).

Spoiler

 

[Revoltingest]

How about examples of each? To help with understanding, or to get into the (inevitable) debate.

I gave some.
I might give more later.

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.

It is challenging to determine what news is quality.
No source can be blindly trusted.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

Sounds like you've given me a big homework assignment.
I'm not biting.

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.

If someone claims he's lying, the onus is on one to show intentional misrepresentation.
I don't doubt that he lies at times.
Same for Hillary.
But seldom do I see something demonstrably so.

 

[esmith]

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?

No, I think you covered all the possible iterations of "news"

 

[tytlyf]

This is hilarious. Look what people elected. Russia/Putin/Oil ties.

 

[esmith]

This is hilarious. Look what people elected. Russia/Putin/Oil ties.

Having problems with realty? Or is it that you are embarrassed by your comment

Hillary will win in a historic landslide.

can't help myself......it's hilarious.

 

[Acim]

Prove these are wrong All statements involving Donald Trump | PolitiFact

I'd like to see this one proven right (as being false):

that 3 million votes were cast by illegal aliens (False).

The link leaves a lot to be desired and strikes me as spin. Both sides are spinning, but seems the idea that 'votes being cast by illegal aliens' or non-citizens isn't really in dispute, just the number of them is. Still we don't know who, for sure, such votes were cast for, but do know that they were cast. Again, how many, not really known with currently available info, and arguably never will be, as any published report will seek to be debunked, like pretty much all published reports are nowadays.

To me, the larger takeaway though is some people treat politifact as somewhere between neutral (false) and gospel (pants on fire). Citing it as a non-biased authority on fact-checking (hilarious).

 

[habiru]

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.

Obama stated that is how the people reacts when things are not going in their favor, but they does it only after the elections.

----------------------------------------------------------------

But right now at the moment, that they are trying to pass a bill without notifying the public, to stop fake news by having to appoint a certain organization that can approve what is true or not. But of course that they will appoint someone from their organization. But they are trying to hurry up before President Trump enters into office. All I sees is censorship. That all they has been doing over the years, and that is keeping the public from knowing what is going on behind our backs. Giving us news that they only wants us to hear.

Congress Just Quietly Passed a Bill Targeting “Russian Propaganda” Websites Congress Just Quietly Passed a Bill Targeting "Russian Propaganda" Websites

 

[Revoltingest]

Very interesting story about fake news creators....
This matches another report that fake news isn't agenda driven.
It's about money....but pro-Trump & anti-Hillary news are what sells.
And Facebook is the most powerful venue.
Fascinating times we live in, eh.

 

[buddhist]

Because of the First Amendment, the government should not even touch this "fake news" subject.

The bottom line is - without resorting to agenda-driven nanny state regulations to coddle and pre-program ignorant children, how can individual adults distinguish for themselves what might be "fake news"?

Here are some suggestions:
1. They've previously reported something as fact, and then was later proven false (this eliminates most of the so-called "mainstream" news);
2. They restrict or stifle commentary in any way against their news articles (e.g. no comment section);
3. They receive subsidies from the government;
4. They receive money from foreign governments;

Any other ideas?

 

[Revoltingest]

In the <erroneous news> category.....
Teen accused of making up story of anti-Muslim harassment on NYC subway
One might call it "fake news", but this is a case where the fabrication wasn't from the news media.

 

[habiru]

 

[habiru]

 

[habiru]

 

[esmith]

Let's take a little look at "fake news" and how some media sources handle it.
Now I'm just going to use the Headlines of Buzzfeed
Drunk Men Yelling “Donald Trump” Attempt To Remove Woman’s Hijab On NYC Subway
Then
Woman Arrested For Allegedly Making Up Story Of NY Subway Attack By Trump Supporters

see any "bias" here?
now just to be correct here are the actual links
Drunk Men Yelling “Donald Trump” Attempt To Remove Woman’s Hijab On NYC Subway
Woman Arrested For Allegedly Making Up Story Of NY Subway Attack By Trump Supporters

 

[Revoltingest]

Let's take a little look at "fake news" and how some media sources handle it.
Now I'm just going to use the Headlines of Buzzfeed
Drunk Men Yelling “Donald Trump” Attempt To Remove Woman’s Hijab On NYC Subway
Then
Woman Arrested For Allegedly Making Up Story Of NY Subway Attack By Trump Supporters

see any "bias" here?
now just to be correct here are the actual links
Drunk Men Yelling “Donald Trump” Attempt To Remove Woman’s Hijab On NYC Subway
Woman Arrested For Allegedly Making Up Story Of NY Subway Attack By Trump Supporters

It's good the same source covered it.
But I saw mention of their prior coverage, which would've been appropriate to reference.

I created a new category.....
"Real coverage of a fake event"

 

[buddhist]

Let's take a little look at "fake news" and how some media sources handle it.
Now I'm just going to use the Headlines of Buzzfeed
Drunk Men Yelling “Donald Trump” Attempt To Remove Woman’s Hijab On NYC Subway
Then
Woman Arrested For Allegedly Making Up Story Of NY Subway Attack By Trump Supporters

see any "bias" here?
now just to be correct here are the actual links
Drunk Men Yelling “Donald Trump” Attempt To Remove Woman’s Hijab On NYC Subway
Woman Arrested For Allegedly Making Up Story Of NY Subway Attack By Trump Supporters

Time to add the New York Daily News and Buzzfeed to the list of fake news outlets?

 

[Acim]

For Allegedly Making Up

Part of me doesn't even see how that makes sense. Isn't everything that is made up, allegedly made up?

 

[esmith]

No it's not really about fake news directly it's about the "bias"
First Headline....Does not say
Allegedly Drunk Men Yelling “Donald Trump” Attempt To Remove Woman’s Hijab On NYC Subway
but second Headline says the woman was "allegedly" making the story up.

The majority of the time reputable news sources will say "allegedly" or words to that effect about an event until it is a "proven" fact. But here Buzzfeed implies the woman story was a proven fact, then when the facts come out they revert to "allegedly"

One opinion commentator said he was skeptical about the story as soon as it came out. The reason was it happened on the NYC subway and their was not a single cellphone video of the event. Come-on how many times does something happen that people don't pull out their cellphone and start taking videos. I won't be surprised when a cellphone belonging to person killed when a terrorist starts shooting up a crowd doesn't show the terrorist pointing the weapon at the camera.

 

[tytlyf]

Look at this stuff people believed. Very dangerous propaganda. Trump supporters were holding up signs directing people to these websites. Democrats don't do this.

Example 1
Example 2