The Problem of Misinformation

[Kartari]

While the mainstream media more broadly is not 100% unbiased in its reporting of news events, it's been readily obvious for a very long time now that conservative "commentators" on Fox News and on the radio far exceed their mainstream media counterparts in their degrees of political bias and their telling of falsehoods. So much so that I consider Fox News to be more aptly named the Republican Propaganda Department, and commentators like Rush Limbaugh to be of utterly laughable credibility. Bill O'Riley and Sean Hannity of Fox News are as well rather egregious in their obvious political bias and telling of falsehoods.

It is one thing to say you lean right or left, that you favor a weaker or stronger government on this or that issue, and to have meaningful opinions based on legitimate facts. But the problem with figures like these is that many listeners seem to have been fooled into living in a fabricated alternate reality. In this alternate reality, the facts become lies, and all mainstream news sources and respected unbiased research authorities alike are all wrongly perceived to be extremely "liberal" in their bias. Even primary sources (i.e. statements coming straight from the horse's mouth) are discounted as always being edited by the "liberal" media to warp them, even when this is often and clearly not true. In all cases, these instances are regarded with extreme outrage, as if (quite ironically) they are the morally reprehensible and blatant liars here.

In short, right-wing con artists have succeeded in being perceived as the truth-sayers in the minds of many Americans.

I strongly believe the success of these right-wing liars has had a profound effect on the recent election. Hillary Clinton had her issues. But her issues had little to do with what these conspiracy theorists fabricated from whole cloth. In contrast, Donald Trump, who is demonstrably an inept, morally reprehensible, and extremely dangerous presidential candidate judging by his own statements from his own mouth alone, has been heralded as the perceived superior candidate by their distorted presentations. Somehow, this very obvious con artist has been believed by many middle class Americans to not only be a capable president, but one who'd actually be interested in helping them.

I came across this article yesterday: Fake News Is Not the Real Media Threat We’re Facing It sums up my point pretty well, though I consider Fox and these commentators to be a part of fake news rather than a distinctly different entity. I think the article's point is a fair one, however: Fox et al succeed in presenting themselves as legitimate news sources, whereas fake news sites, while believed by some, have not attained that degree of perceived credibility.

In any case, the question now is how do we, as a nation, recover from this extraordinary degree of misinformation circulating amongst the masses as if it were true? Who are these people who actually believe these liars, and how do we begin to teach them how to comprehend the clear difference between fake news and real news sources? While I agree with the article that mainstream media should take the mantle of assaulting rather than ignoring these fake news sources (including Fox News; and by assaulting, I specifically mean diligently exposing all their lies and their biases), I think we need to address the deeper problem of why so many people don't understand how to distinguish legitimate sources of information from biased sources.

 

[Revoltingest]

The only way to recover from the damage of misinformation
is to recognize that it crops up in one's own camp too.
To focus only upon sins of the other side is to become too
comfortable, & consequently vulnerable.

 

[Sunstone]

In any case, the question now is how do we, as a nation, recover from this extraordinary degree of misinformation circulating amongst the masses as if it were true?

I think a good start would be (1) a law allowing citizens to sue any corporation or organization, etc that represents itself as providing a news service (as opposed to providing mere commentary and/or opinion) but demonstrates a pattern of providing false or grossly misleading information, and (2) a law prohibiting any corporation or organization, etc. that represents itself as providing a news service from propagating false or grossly misleading information.

I have heard that such a law as suggested in point #2 has either discouraged or prevented Fox News from operating in Canada.

Who are these people who actually believe these liars, and how do we begin to teach them how to comprehend the clear difference between fake news and real news sources?

You don't. As Mark Twain said, "It is far easier to fool a man than to convince him he's been fooled." The people who believe the liars are for the most part too far gone to reform at this point. They're delusional, they're beyond hope now, and they will die delusional. The most you'll ever get any of them to do is draw false equivalencies between Fox, etc and more reliable news sources claiming both sorts of sources are equally bad. And you'll be lucky to get that much from them.

While I agree with the article that mainstream media should take the mantle of assaulting rather than ignoring these fake news sources (including Fox News; and by assaulting, I specifically mean diligently exposing all their lies and their biases), I think we need to address the deeper problem of why so many people don't understand how to distinguish legitimate sources of information from biased sources.

I think a place to start is with much better public education -- especially in such areas as critical thinking, media awareness, and so forth. It might be possible to "save" the children of today's fools, even if the fools themselves can no longer be saved.

 

[Wu Wei]

The only way to recover from the damage of misinformation
is to recognize that it crops up in one's own camp too.
To focus only upon sins of the other side is to become too
comfortable, & consequently vulnerable.

But that would require taking responsibility for ones own actions, a cessation of whining and negation finger pointing...... none of which is in vogue at the moment

 

[esmith]

I think the concept of "fake news" by some people is that they do not know the difference between a journalist and a commentator.
Media source have both, and a person should be able to recognize the difference when the watch or listen to a program.
Some journalist are capable, most of the time, to be a journalist. Some media sources can be considered biased one way or another depending on the stories they report on and still report the facts.

So if one is using the commentator to determine if a media source is putting out "fake news" they have a problem.

 

[whirlingmerc]

A problem is that Hillary and Obama generated allot of fake news themselves.
Even the NYT printed fictional accounts as news sometimes, with insufficient due diligence.

Used to be the 'commentator' opinions were heavy on the editorial page and facts dominated the rest... not so much anymore. I find the fourth most circulated news source in the US to be fairly good World Magazine www.worldmag.com

I find FoxNews hardly perfect but far less bias than say MSNBC or CNN
I like World Magazine better yet

 

[Lyndon]

That's because you're already drinking the Kool-aid!!

 

[whirlingmerc]

You have quite a way with words, Lyndon.

from today's World Mag

 

[pearl]

Unfortunately, I think we are drawn to the news organizations we agree with. One of the things I have noticed, Fox news especially, is the labeling of the effort to maintain civility within the public conversation as 'political correctness.', civility becomes the enemy. We have become lazy in not bothering to check sources. It is said that this election is 'consequential', we may be about to find the truth to that the hard way.
A further problem being these news outlets are owned by one conglomerate or another.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I would label allot of what CNN and MSNBC does as misinformation and not civility
adding they are more than a bit out of touch with many people.

But most of their journalists are very secular and attend religious gatherings far far less than
most people and so.. of course they have a bit different world view.

 

[pearl]

Civility in language is nothing more than keeping the 'fight' clean.
When people do not have a legitimate argument they resort to insults directed toward the person or persons, ie their physical looks, disability etc. I don't know what religious gatherings has to do with anything as some of these may be the worst offenders.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

While the mainstream media more broadly is not 100% unbiased in its reporting of news events, it's been readily obvious for a very long time now that conservative "commentators" on Fox News and on the radio far exceed their mainstream media counterparts in their degrees of political bias and their telling of falsehoods. So much so that I consider Fox News to be more aptly named the Republican Propaganda Department, and commentators like Rush Limbaugh to be of utterly laughable credibility. Bill O'Riley and Sean Hannity of Fox News are as well rather egregious in their obvious political bias and telling of falsehoods.

It is one thing to say you lean right or left, that you favor a weaker or stronger government on this or that issue, and to have meaningful opinions based on legitimate facts. But the problem with figures like these is that many listeners seem to have been fooled into living in a fabricated alternate reality. In this alternate reality, the facts become lies, and all mainstream news sources and respected unbiased research authorities alike are all wrongly perceived to be extremely "liberal" in their bias. Even primary sources (i.e. statements coming straight from the horse's mouth) are discounted as always being edited by the "liberal" media to warp them, even when this is often and clearly not true. In all cases, these instances are regarded with extreme outrage, as if (quite ironically) they are the morally reprehensible and blatant liars here.

In short, right-wing con artists have succeeded in being perceived as the truth-sayers in the minds of many Americans.

I strongly believe the success of these right-wing liars has had a profound effect on the recent election. Hillary Clinton had her issues. But her issues had little to do with what these conspiracy theorists fabricated from whole cloth. In contrast, Donald Trump, who is demonstrably an inept, morally reprehensible, and extremely dangerous presidential candidate judging by his own statements from his own mouth alone, has been heralded as the perceived superior candidate by their distorted presentations. Somehow, this very obvious con artist has been believed by many middle class Americans to not only be a capable president, but one who'd actually be interested in helping them.

I came across this article yesterday: Fake News Is Not the Real Media Threat We’re Facing It sums up my point pretty well, though I consider Fox and these commentators to be a part of fake news rather than a distinctly different entity. I think the article's point is a fair one, however: Fox et al succeed in presenting themselves as legitimate news sources, whereas fake news sites, while believed by some, have not attained that degree of perceived credibility.

In any case, the question now is how do we, as a nation, recover from this extraordinary degree of misinformation circulating amongst the masses as if it were true? Who are these people who actually believe these liars, and how do we begin to teach them how to comprehend the clear difference between fake news and real news sources? While I agree with the article that mainstream media should take the mantle of assaulting rather than ignoring these fake news sources (including Fox News; and by assaulting, I specifically mean diligently exposing all their lies and their biases), I think we need to address the deeper problem of why so many people don't understand how to distinguish legitimate sources of information from biased sources.

On the one hand we have Faux News and on the other we have MSNBC (Misleading Sham News Bull**** Center). In the middle we have NBC (Negligently Biased Content) and ABC (Agitate, Berate, Confuse). Abroad we have BBC (British Bull**** Center).

The misinformation is eyebrow deep across the board. Yes Faux News does a tremedous job at being biased for the sake of the republican party. It is number one every year. It is the reigning heavyweight champion of bull**** and misinformation. But coming in at a closer and closer 2nd every year is MSNBC. And the others are still competitors in the same damn game. Not all are equally bull**** but all are to a degree bull****. Entertainment news has become a thing. Its not just the fact that mainstream media across the board ignored Standing Rock for months. Its not just the fact that they ignore real news and continue to push nearly fake stories. It even in the small things like posting a flashy science article that states Wine is good for you and eating chocolate gives you surprising benifits. Also here is a video of a dog that learned to skateboard and a white cop playing five minutes of basketball with some teens in a lower middle class street.

Factcheck everyone and everything.

 

[esmith]

On the one hand we have Faux News and on the other we have MSNBC (Misleading Sham News Bull**** Center). In the middle we have NBC (Negligently Biased Content) and ABC (Agitate, Berate, Confuse). Abroad we have BBC (British Bull**** Center).

The misinformation is eyebrow deep across the board. Yes Faux News does a tremedous job at being biased for the sake of the republican party. It is number one every year. It is the reigning heavyweight champion of bull**** and misinformation. But coming in at a closer and closer 2nd every year is MSNBC. And the others are still competitors in the same damn game. Not all are equally bull**** but all are to a degree bull****. Entertainment news has become a thing. Its not just the fact that mainstream media across the board ignored Standing Rock for months. Its not just the fact that they ignore real news and continue to push nearly fake stories. It even in the small things like posting a flashy science article that states Wine is good for you and eating chocolate gives you surprising benifits. Also here is a video of a dog that learned to skateboard and a white cop playing five minutes of basketball with some teens in a lower middle class street.

Factcheck everyone and everything.

Just one question.
When you are referring to FNC are you basing your opinion on their news programs or their opinion programs?
If your lumping them all together then you are biased. I find that there are journalist on their news programs, whereas on some of the other media outlets there are journalist that report the news then become commentators during the supposedly only journalistic programs

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Just one question.
When you are referring to FNC are you basing your opinion on their news programs or their opinion programs?
If your lumping them all together then you are biased. I find that there are journalist on their news programs, whereas on some of the other media outlets there are journalist that report the news then become commentators during the supposedly only journalistic programs

I'm talking about the network. Their news is biased sure. But they seamlessly transition their "opinion" shows in with the news in the same format to give it the illusion of news. They are winning on all three fronts. Their actual news is the most biased of all the "actual non opinionated news" and their opinion sections are just in a league of their own. And then double trouble brownie points for sticking them together so well that they have people sitting at home with trucker caps on believing that Bill O'Reily and Hannity are news anchors. Now if Fox wants to stay on top they better up their game because MSNBC is catching up real quick in both reguards.

But yes the network itself is just a Republican propaganda machine from everything from its morning shows, "real" news, opinion shows and even down to their goddamned commercials.

 

[Underhill]

A problem is that Hillary and Obama generated allot of fake news themselves.
Even the NYT printed fictional accounts as news sometimes, with insufficient due diligence.

Used to be the 'commentator' opinions were heavy on the editorial page and facts dominated the rest... not so much anymore. I find the fourth most circulated news source in the US to be fairly good World Magazine www.worldmag.com

I find FoxNews hardly perfect but far less bias than say MSNBC or CNN
I like World Magazine better yet

That's kinda funny.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

@Kartari in these few posts we see some of the major problems of staightening out honest and honorable journalists from propogandists/liars/yellow dog slime.
So many people who have already drunk the Kool-Aid believe that factual sources are biased against them and lying through their teeth..... while the Kool-Aid suppliers are in fact the only honest source of information as far as the drinkers can see.

I find that one of the major problems is false equivalency. Using Fox News as a prime example, with their "We report: You decide.", and their "Fair and balanced" bull$#!+. They cherry-pick and report what does exist, but with poor and misleading graphics, as well as even tonal inflections of the reporters' voices make it seem that a "wise" viewer should decide exactly the way that they want the viewer to decide.
This makes the Kool-Aid drinking dupe all the more convinced that they have chosen the correct information and made the right decision.

Furthermore, the general public does not have time, inclination, or skill enough to research false claims. They have for decades relied upon news journalists to be true investigative journalists; who will cut through the BS and deliver only the truth to the public after extensive research.
However; since the conservative owners of almost all media have slashed every budget except for entertainment and PR then there is no one left to do any kind of investigations, and all we have are smiling men and pretty ladies on the TV screen.

 

[Acim]

While the mainstream media more broadly is not 100% unbiased in its reporting of news events, it's been readily obvious for a very long time now that conservative "commentators" on Fox News and on the radio far exceed their mainstream media counterparts in their degrees of political bias and their telling of falsehoods. So much so that I consider Fox News to be more aptly named the Republican Propaganda Department, and commentators like Rush Limbaugh to be of utterly laughable credibility. Bill O'Riley and Sean Hannity of Fox News are as well rather egregious in their obvious political bias and telling of falsehoods.

I find all this subjective and utterly laughable. While I'm thinking it possible to show a few examples, that you didn't choose to do, for conservative commentators expressing political bias, it is also equally possible to do this for liberal and mainstream media bias. Thus the "far exceeds" part of your comment is what I see as utterly laughable and is where I'm sure the debate starts.

It is one thing to say you lean right or left, that you favor a weaker or stronger government on this or that issue, and to have meaningful opinions based on legitimate facts. But the problem with figures like these is that many listeners seem to have been fooled into living in a fabricated alternate reality. In this alternate reality, the facts become lies, and all mainstream news sources and respected unbiased research authorities alike are all wrongly perceived to be extremely "liberal" in their bias. Even primary sources (i.e. statements coming straight from the horse's mouth) are discounted as always being edited by the "liberal" media to warp them, even when this is often and clearly not true. In all cases, these instances are regarded with extreme outrage, as if (quite ironically) they are the morally reprehensible and blatant liars here.

Again, without examples this is hard to see what you're trying to convey, other than saying RW media is inherently misguided while LW media is doing due diligence and MSM media is on the (ahem) right track. All of which an (true) independent would recognize as subjective opinion.

In short, right-wing con artists have succeeded in being perceived as the truth-sayers in the minds of many Americans.

I strongly believe the success of these right-wing liars has had a profound effect on the recent election. Hillary Clinton had her issues. But her issues had little to do with what these conspiracy theorists fabricated from whole cloth. In contrast, Donald Trump, who is demonstrably an inept, morally reprehensible, and extremely dangerous presidential candidate judging by his own statements from his own mouth alone, has been heralded as the perceived superior candidate by their distorted presentations. Somehow, this very obvious con artist has been believed by many middle class Americans to not only be a capable president, but one who'd actually be interested in helping them.

This is somewhat an example of what you are trying to get across, but comes across as sore losing. How is it different than Obama selling people on hope and change, only to learn 8 years later that lots of communities in America felt their hope (for a better life) take a serious hit under Obama admin? Given how national elections work, I don't get why anyone running would go with the integrity based approach and stay within sphere of what can be reasonably delivered, when all political facts are taken into account. Like "free tuition" is an example. Who thought that would pass congress with zero questions/debates being had? I'm thinking no one over the age of 25, and yet, it became a popular campaign promise? Why, because the costs in that arena have spun out of control, and seemingly the only viable solution the Left could come up with was to have the government bail out all students in debt. So, costs can continue to go up, and remain out of control, and what's another trillion or so dollars added to the annual budget? How can anyone possibly disagree with this?

In any case, the question now is how do we, as a nation, recover from this extraordinary degree of misinformation circulating amongst the masses as if it were true? Who are these people who actually believe these liars, and how do we begin to teach them how to comprehend the clear difference between fake news and real news sources? While I agree with the article that mainstream media should take the mantle of assaulting rather than ignoring these fake news sources (including Fox News; and by assaulting, I specifically mean diligently exposing all their lies and their biases), I think we need to address the deeper problem of why so many people don't understand how to distinguish legitimate sources of information from biased sources.

Given this sort of spin, I see no way out of the mess. To think MSM and LW media are on the inherently righteous path and RW media is inherently misguided is a non-starter for I would guess around 20% of the adult population. I'd like to think it higher than this, but as you said, people actually believe these (LW media) liars.

As I've noted elsewhere, bias comes in many forms. One of those is determining the priority of current news and you'll see this on the right and left, while also seeing it in MSM media that's popular. That being that if say something really embarrassing and glaringly obvious happens to Obama today, RW media will report on it, and LW media will treat it as non-story. Reverse the roles, and have the same sort of thing happen with Trump, and LW media will report on it andRW media will treat it as non-story. That to me is obvious examples. You can do this with almost every story currently out there. Go see where on their webpages, their news/print magazines, their broadcasts - where do they place the importance of each story. MSM does this as well. Then compare it with other news agencies. IMO, this is as important of a factor in determining bias as what editorial board and commentators are currently espousing. It's also how one would know the bias has been with us for a long time. The commentator stuff is about 25 years old now and has taken things to another level, but I don't see that level as greatly exceeding the previous bias. If you tune into old newscast or go read old print journalism, you can pick up on the bias.

So, the debate returns, yet again to what are these so called legitimate facts and who really is determining what they are - for everyone?

 

[buddhist]

Who are these people who actually believe these liars, and how do we begin to teach them how to comprehend the clear difference between fake news and real news sources?

Buddhist philosophy would be a good place to start: be skeptical of everything until we know it for ourselves.

 

[Acim]

A problem is that Hillary and Obama generated allot of fake news themselves.

This is a good point. Both these people at one point in U.S. history are claiming a anti-Muslim video is responsible for unrest in Benghazi. Why are they doing this? Is it because they really believe the (so called) intelligence reports citing that video? Or is it more likely that the video can be framed as bearing the blunt of the blame for violence in an area where Obama had tried to restore peace and good relations during his first term, and oh yeah, the next POTUS election is just 4 months away? Be a good soldier and let the Americans believe the video is the primary reason why this violence occurred.

Doesn't help when the MSM is treating that information (from Obama and Hillary) as 'legitimate fact' that deserves no scrutiny.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Revoltingest,

The only way to recover from the damage of misinformation
is to recognize that it crops up in one's own camp too.
To focus only upon sins of the other side is to become too
comfortable, & consequently vulnerable.

I am well aware of how to avoid one-sided information, by always checking with primary sources (i.e. reviewing a full interview with the person in question, if they're claimed to have said a certain something) rather than assuming a particular news source has gotten it 100% right. I also check with several independent and respected sources on each given news piece, including Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and other conservative-leaning sources, as secondary sources to provide either a greater context and/or to weed out misinformation.

But your post assumes that right-leaning sources like Fox News and mainstream news sources like CNN or the New York Times are equal in their degrees of bias. In reality, they are not: a more careful examination of reporting done by these respective sources reveals far more inaccuracies on the part of Fox, I'm afraid. Just because there's bias on both political sides does not imply the degree of bias is equal.

...

I should disclaim, btw, that I am neither a registered Democrat nor Republican. I'm not affiliated with any party, as I refuse on principle to participate in political parties, which were never meant to be a part of our political system to begin with, and for good reason. For starters, they possess an undemocratic control over the pool of electable candidates, block serious efforts for much-needed campaign finance reform, and only encourage people to pick and root for teams, like we're playing football instead of tackling meaningful and life-altering issues... but I digress. My point in mentioning this is to establish that I do not identify as a liberal or a Democrat. While I do agree very much with the left on social issues (since they uniquely seek to protect the liberties of minorities from oppression or mob rule, conservative rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding), I do not at all neatly fall into either party on fiscal or governmental policy issues: I take a pragmatic or "whatever works best" approach to that. While I generally favor limited government (i.e. I opposed Obama's government takeover of General Motors), I do want to see some intervention implemented in situations where it makes sense (i.e. I favor universal health coverage via extending Medicaid).