The Problem of Misinformation

[Acim]

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.

I honestly don't see how anyone can take this seriously. Yet, I do recognize it as prevailing opinion (on the Left). Perhaps studying these individuals would give some insight into the people on the right who paint everything non-RW media as inherently untrustworthy? I don't know, just an idea. I would say Bret Baier is as much a news anchor as anyone currently residing in MSM. And Shepard Smith comes from the (hard) right about as much as Jake Tapper does. Possibly less.

 

[whirlingmerc]

as a right to life person and not a Republican or Democrat I also am neither party and see both candidates as significantly flawed

The choice seemed to be better someone who says inadvisably dumb things like Trump and someone who says sophisticated lies like Hillary... not easy

 

[Kartari]

Hi Sunstone,

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.

...

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.

...

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.

We see things very similarly.

I always get nervous when we begin to speak about doing anything that might infringe upon the First Amendment. I've long held the attitude that I don't have to agree with someone in order to defend their right to say it, as this amendment is truly the most fundamental cornerstone of a true democracy.

However, considering the fact that libel, slander, and certain dangerous uses of free speech (i.e. yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) are explicitly and rightly exempted from free speech in the United States, I would be open to considering such laws PROVIDED they are very carefully considered and worded so as not to be vague enough to allow abuse of our freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and religion.

I agree on education. More important than punishing liars is the serious need for American education to be revamped. Too many people fail to comprehend the difference between opinion and fact, between valid science and fantasy, and who fail to comprehend even the rudiments of mathematics and logic among other basic skills necessary for a well-educated public to successfully maintain a democratic system of governance. More crucial to punishing liars is for the masses to wake up and learn how to discern lies for themselves. If we can fix things for the generations to come, then we will have more reason to hope for a better future.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I think humans beings are filled with cognative biases inherent in their psychologies, and are exceedingly lazy about challenging their worldviews. That has always been true, regardless of the spectrum. Me included.

But the difference today is that experts and scientists are no longer respected. Citizens used to look up to professional opinions, but now actual science is partisan.

Any editorial that discounts scientific inquiry/conclusions in favor of political expediency is morally compromised, period. I'm not naming names, but there is no false equivalency there. That's a conservative media problem.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I honestly don't see how anyone can take this seriously. Yet, I do recognize it as prevailing opinion (on the Left). Perhaps studying these individuals would give some insight into the people on the right who paint everything non-RW media as inherently untrustworthy? I don't know, just an idea. I would say Bret Baier is as much a news anchor as anyone currently residing in MSM. And Shepard Smith comes from the (hard) right about as much as Jake Tapper does. Possibly less.

I don't see how anyone can take any for-profit news organizations seriously. Especially so when there is no legal obligation to tell the truth and no economic pressure to tell the truth. News ratings run on political bias and flash titles. Its not that every single thing said it false. Of course not. But everything is said through a filter. Always.

 

[Acim]

I don't see how anyone can take any for-profit news organizations seriously.

That's okay. I can.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That's okay. I can.

Good for you. Hopefully you fact check what you hear and hopefully have multiple news outlets to at least attempt to offset the bias. Good day sir.

 

[esmith]

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.

Are you saying that within their news programs, say like Happening Now, Tucker Carlson Tonight", Special Report, The Kelly File, American Newsroom, Shepard Smith Reporting, Fox News Sunday are opinion based news programs to name a few. Or are you saying that their "journalistic news programs" are on the same network as their opinion programs like Hannity, The Five, The O'Reilly Factor, and others?
Just wondering.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Are you saying that within their news programs, say like Happening Now, Tucker Carlson Tonight", Special Report, The Kelly File, American Newsroom, Shepard Smith Reporting, Fox News Sunday are opinion based news programs to name a few. Or are you saying that their "journalistic news programs" are on the same network as their opinion programs like Hannity, The Five, The O'Reilly Factor, and others?
Just wondering.

Yes they are all Fox Broadcast network. Do you think muliple networks change out during the day on the same chanel? Also irrelevant funfact 21st cenetury fox owns 20th century fox, Blue sky's stuidio, Fox stuidio's Australia, Fox news group which has two major divisions ( Fox News Channel which is the owner of all of the shows you listed earlier, and Fox buisiness network), All local fox television stations, My Network TV, Fox Family, FX, FXX, FXM, FX productions, Baby TV, Fox life, Fox Digital media, Fox Sports Network, All national geographic channels (including nat geo and its counterparts), Sky pic, Star TV, Fox Music and owns 30% of Hulu.

The parent company to 21st Century Fox(News Corp) which owns all of the aformentioned also owns The Wall Street Journal and the New York post and all assets obviously that those companies own. Then they get into the hundreds of foreign and international copanies. Also funny fact they owned Myspace before it flopped.

 

[esmith]

Yes they are all Fox Broadcast network. Do you think muliple networks change out during the day on the same chanel? Also irrelevant funfact 21st cenetury fox owns 20th century fox, Blue sky's stuidio, Fox stuidio's Australia, Fox news group which has two major divisions ( Fox News Channel which is the owner of all of the shows you listed earlier, and Fox buisiness network), All local fox television stations, My Network TV, Fox Family, FX, FXX, FXM, FX productions, Baby TV, Fox life, Fox Digital media, Fox Sports Network, All national geographic channels (including nat geo and its counterparts), Sky pic, Star TV, Fox Music and owns 30% of Hulu.

The parent company to 21st Century Fox(News Corp) which owns all of the aformentioned also owns The Wall Street Journal and the New York post and all assets obviously that those companies own. Then they get into the hundreds of foreign and international copanies. Also funny fact they owned Myspace before it flopped.

So you have no problem with their journalistic news programs only their opinion programs. Is that correct?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So you have no problem with their journalistic news programs only their opinion programs. Is that correct?

Not necessarily. I think their journalistic news programs, while not innacruate, are biased in both the stance they take and the choice of stories put out in the news. Now to what degree of bias is implemented at any given point in time is varied from slight ot extreme on case by case basis.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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.

Yes, we should make all media liberal again! much more trustworthy!

 

[esmith]

Not necessarily. I think their journalistic news programs, while not innacruate, are biased in both the stance they take and the choice of stories put out in the news. Now to what degree of bias is implemented at any given point in time is varied from slight ot extreme on case by case basis.

I watch the FNC and Fox Business Channel for some of my news, I also watch the local news and the National News (ABC affiliate). I rarely watch the FNC opinion based shows unless I'm really bored (when the weather is lousy like it has been for the past week or so). The local and national news just do not have the time in a half hour each to cover the news and weather. Therefore I'm stuck with not knowing what's going on in the world. Used to watch CNN but they became (as far as I'm concerned too biased for my taste). The other news(?) networks are not a choice. I guess it is where you political needle is at when you watch 24 hour news. I just find the journalistic news programs on FNC and Fox Business are closer to my political leanings than the others. Yeah, there is bias on Fox but then there is bias on all news so it's up to you to be smart enough to question things.

 

[Lyndon]

In other words, you don't know what the heck is going on because you get your news from a totally biased source!! This would make sense with the posts you make which also seem way out of touch with reality.

 

[esmith]

In other words, you don't know what the heck is going on because you get your news from a totally biased source!! This would make sense with the posts you make which also seem way out of touch with reality.

I guess it is "your" reality and "your" opinions that I disagree with. Therein lies your problem.

 

[Lyndon]

Yeah its reality you disagree with alright!!

 

[tytlyf]

This isn't anything new, but you can only spot what they're doing if you watch everything (all sources, all sides). Otherwise, you're gonna be stuck in the echo chamber bubble. Watching everything allows you to pick up on voice cues, tone, demeanor, etc.

Bias is just opinion. Bias =/= truth. The truth and facts have no bias.

 

[esmith]

This isn't anything new, but you can only spot what they're doing if you watch everything (all sources, all sides). Otherwise, you're gonna be stuck in the echo chamber bubble. Watching everything allows you to pick up on voice cues, tone, demeanor, etc.

Bias is just opinion. Bias =/= truth. The truth and facts have no bias.

Therefore you are saying that whatever you post is not based on truth or facts. OK I will take that into account anytime you post.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I watch the FNC and Fox Business Channel for some of my news, I also watch the local news and the National News (ABC affiliate). I rarely watch the FNC opinion based shows unless I'm really bored (when the weather is lousy like it has been for the past week or so). The local and national news just do not have the time in a half hour each to cover the news and weather. Therefore I'm stuck with not knowing what's going on in the world. Used to watch CNN but they became (as far as I'm concerned too biased for my taste). The other news(?) networks are not a choice. I guess it is where you political needle is at when you watch 24 hour news. I just find the journalistic news programs on FNC and Fox Business are closer to my political leanings than the others. Yeah, there is bias on Fox but then there is bias on all news so it's up to you to be smart enough to question things.

Oh yeah I agree. That was the point I was making earlier. There are no major news stations that are unbiased or even mostly unbiased. Not all are specifically geared towards a specific political party however. The two main offenders of that are Fox and MSNBC. CNN, ABC ect all have some kind of lean but that lean is typically sensationalism for the sake of money and usually leans more liberal than conservative but not distinctly democrat like MSNBC does. Best thing to do is to fact check things and have multiple news sources with conflicting biases. If Fox says something, CNN Says something and MSNBC says something and they are all pretty much the same then it is a really good chance its true in an unbiased way.

Lets take the Standing Rock protests as an example. ALL major news stations ignored it till it became a huge deal. Fox mentioned in mostly in the light of protestors protesting a legal pipeline. This is true but doesn't fully cover the story. The MSNBC station covered it more as a grassroots protest against big oil. While technically true they didn't convey the fact that the pipeline was legal and that it wasn't actually going through their sacred land but north and upriver of it. Watching both gives you more information than just watching one.

 

[esmith]

Oh yeah I agree. That was the point I was making earlier. There are no major news stations that are unbiased or even mostly unbiased. Not all are specifically geared towards a specific political party however. The two main offenders of that are Fox and MSNBC. CNN, ABC ect all have some kind of lean but that lean is typically sensationalism for the sake of money and usually leans more liberal than conservative but not distinctly democrat like MSNBC does. Best thing to do is to fact check things and have multiple news sources with conflicting biases. If Fox says something, CNN Says something and MSNBC says something and they are all pretty much the same then it is a really good chance its true in an unbiased way.

Lets take the Standing Rock protests as an example. ALL major news stations ignored it till it became a huge deal. Fox mentioned in mostly in the light of protestors protesting a legal pipeline. This is true but doesn't fully cover the story. The MSNBC station covered it more as a grassroots protest against big oil. While technically true they didn't convey the fact that the pipeline was legal and that it wasn't actually going through their sacred land but north and upriver of it. Watching both gives you more information than just watching one.

It is almost impossible to get unbiased news, whether it is over the air or through print, in today's world. I find that the most respected news person that I can find is Chris Wallace on Sunday morning. The reason I say this is that he takes a news story, gives the facts of the story then moderates the response from various guest that represent differing views. The only problem is the lack of different topics.....takes a long time to hear different views and it's only 1 hour. I think, it is interesting to listen to both sides of an issue. It may only be me but I have been seeing somewhat of a smugness or holier than thou attitude from those that are consider left leaning. Now I'm not saying they are the only ones with this fault, it just seems that there are more on the left attempting this. What really bothers me, and this is from both sides, is the attempt to deflect and not answer a question. If I ever hear a person say, "yes we made a mistake" or words to that affect I will trust them. At least they are attempting to be honest