3 ms·

I wonder if The Intercept will qualify as "fake news" in the near future for exposing things like this.

by cndjckdovj 10y ago

Amir6 10y ago
What (TF) are you talking about??!!
- cndjckdovj 10y ago
  The Intercept is an upstart news outlet that so far meets all of the criteria that have been thrown around over the last fews days for what's now being referred to as "fake news." -TI is small -TI is new -most of what TI publishes makes our politicians look bad -TI relies on word of mouth through social media You're really playing with fire if you think it's a good idea to let other people mark things as "real" or "fake" for you.
- xndjxncnd 10y ago
  People have been talking about shutting down "fake news" outlets in recent days, but The Intercept matches many of the criteria that they have been discussing so far. -TI is new -TI is small -TI primarily publishes content that makes politicians look bad -TI relies on word of mouth through social media You're really playing with fire if you think it's a good idea to let other people classify things as "real" and "fake" for you.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Aren't people talking about shutting down outlets that just make shit up? I hadn't realized they were going after outlets on things like age and size and editorial focus.
    - svachalek 10y ago
      If you don't see the point of the former, you become convinced of the latter.
  - peterkelly 10y ago
    Given that one of its founding journalists, Glenn Greenwald, is a pulitzer prize winner, and that the site has published many stories on one of the most significant news topics of the decade (the Snowden revelations), I don't think anyone could reasonably place it in the same category as the fake news sites that have been talked about recently. > You're really playing with fire if you think it's a good idea to let other people classify things as "real" and "fake" for you. You do this with literally every news source you read or watch. Most people consider CNN, BBC, The Guardian, New York Times etc. to be credible news sources with long-standing reputations. Sure, they are at times biased in their coverage, and selective on what they cover, but unless you're "on the ground" so to speak experiencing current events directly, you have to rely on a degree of trust in journalists and editors. I think the key is looking at the news with a healthy degree of skepticism, and getting your information from a range of different outlets.
    - ams6110 10y ago
      > Most people consider CNN, BBC, The Guardian, New York Times etc. to be credible news sources Fewer than used to. http://www.gallup.com/poll/185927/americans-trust-media-remains-historical-low.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/185927/americans-trust-media-rema...

I wonder if The Intercept will qualify as "fake news" in the near future for exposing things like this.

Amir6 10y ago

What (TF) are you talking about??!!

cndjckdovj 10y ago
The Intercept is an upstart news outlet that so far meets all of the criteria that have been thrown around over the last fews days for what's now being referred to as "fake news." -TI is small -TI is new -most of what TI publishes makes our politicians look bad -TI relies on word of mouth through social media You're really playing with fire if you think it's a good idea to let other people mark things as "real" or "fake" for you.
xndjxncnd 10y ago
People have been talking about shutting down "fake news" outlets in recent days, but The Intercept matches many of the criteria that they have been discussing so far. -TI is new -TI is small -TI primarily publishes content that makes politicians look bad -TI relies on word of mouth through social media You're really playing with fire if you think it's a good idea to let other people classify things as "real" and "fake" for you.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Aren't people talking about shutting down outlets that just make shit up? I hadn't realized they were going after outlets on things like age and size and editorial focus.
  - svachalek 10y ago
    If you don't see the point of the former, you become convinced of the latter.
- peterkelly 10y ago
  Given that one of its founding journalists, Glenn Greenwald, is a pulitzer prize winner, and that the site has published many stories on one of the most significant news topics of the decade (the Snowden revelations), I don't think anyone could reasonably place it in the same category as the fake news sites that have been talked about recently. > You're really playing with fire if you think it's a good idea to let other people classify things as "real" and "fake" for you. You do this with literally every news source you read or watch. Most people consider CNN, BBC, The Guardian, New York Times etc. to be credible news sources with long-standing reputations. Sure, they are at times biased in their coverage, and selective on what they cover, but unless you're "on the ground" so to speak experiencing current events directly, you have to rely on a degree of trust in journalists and editors. I think the key is looking at the news with a healthy degree of skepticism, and getting your information from a range of different outlets.
  - ams6110 10y ago
    > Most people consider CNN, BBC, The Guardian, New York Times etc. to be credible news sources Fewer than used to. http://www.gallup.com/poll/185927/americans-trust-media-remains-historical-low.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/185927/americans-trust-media-rema...