6 ms·

No one denies that there's "fake news" This is an attempt by the media to control the narrative by gatekeeping what's "real news" and what isn't: i.e. what the

No one denies that there's "fake news" This is an attempt by the media to control the narrative by gatekeeping what's "real news" and what isn't: i.e. what they disagree with or citizen/independent journalism that is beating traditional media in providing better coverage.

cmdrfred 10y ago
Agreed. Corporations exist only to seek profit, it is indeed the executive staffs duty to do so, there should be a law of economics that states: "With every corporate action, there exists a profit motive”
kristjansson 10y ago
Isn't the complaint about 'fake news' that it's false, not that it's from a non-traditional source?
- xnull2guest 10y ago
  No, it's motivated that way to get support, but it's about source and credibility. Namely, the traditional media market is an advertising platform: it makes its money by selling stories and perspectives in the form of media narrative to its audience. Large corporations and governments contract with the media to determine what those stories are. You will get stories, and entertaining ones, sure. But it's hardly "true" in the true/false sense. It's like asking if the story Goldilocks is true or false. It isn't either. Indeed, that news media industry sold stories to the American people to - for example - get them into the Iraq war. This was a combination of very true and also false facts. You could point to any particular story and argue pointlessly about whether the individual story was true or false, like Goldilocks. Because of widespread distrust of the 'narrative morals' of mainstream media, alternatives have been appearing. There is a desire by information moguls - both public and private industry - to maintain credibility and to make in various forms alternative narratives not feasible. For public appeal, selective choices are being taken to highlight articles with clearly fabricated facts, with the message being: all alternatives are like this. The first part is true: there exist articles that are complete bullshit both inside and outside the main "credible" media industry. But the second part is not. There's plenty of very well researched, very well documented, very well analysed information that does not get any play in the mainstream media. I remember recently an audio recording of John Kerry talking to Syrian rebel forces was leaked. I got the NYT take. And then I listened to the leaked audio. The content was completely different than the NYT tried to make it out to be and in some cases the point Kerry was making was the exact opposite of the NYT had published. In this case, it was quite clear what the political implications would be of honestly reporting on the content, and including the parts that were selectively edited out.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    I believe that discrediting all serious news media is part of the same general disinformation campaign as the 'fake news'. For one, it's a very standard, expected strategy for such campaigns: The only solution to masses fake information is the credibility of some sources; we trust them to sort through the mess and find the truth. If you want to sow confusion, an obvious tactic is to attack the credibility of the trusted sources. In the U.S., the right-wing bloggers, Fox, etc. have openly done this for many years. For another, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. This "MSM" is not a monolithic group, but very many competing organizations. Any criticism that seems, on its face, poorly thought through.
    - xnull2guest 10y ago
      This comment is so confusing. It points out that the media industry isn't a monolithic group that is composed of competing organizations, and therefore not subject to scrutiny. Then it argues that "fake news", which isn't a monolithic group and is composed of competing organizations, is collaborating and subjects it to scrutiny. I think you're right about the second part. Alternative narratives are going to question - rightfully - the narratives for the current media market. That's the strategic thing to do. But I think you're wrong about the first part for the same reason you are right about the second. Establishment narratives are going to question - rightfully - the narratives of the alternative media market. That's the strategic thing to do. It's important to mention that while modern media companies compete, they compete on a very particular basis: to tell the better publicly endorsed narrative. Deviating from that endorsed narrative gets the organization in trouble (AP during the Obama Administration), loses them access, and loses them incredibly important government contracts. It's also important to not take sides and then try to work backwards to determine who you believe (you'll end up in a circle of cognitive bias, I think well illustrated by what you've posted so far). Looking at the arguments of both the mainstream media and alternative outlets on their own merits is important. What I suspect you'll find is that both are right. Alternative outlets have their own biases, and ones you might not agree with! But you'll also find that establishment media is deeply biased and incredibly compromised in terms of credibility, everything from whitewashing war crimes, excusing government torture and covering Snowden documents as "bulk collection" rather than "mass surveillance". That is, if you're apt to make intellectual mistakes like thinking in black and white and ideological totality - you're bound to not only discredit the side that you want to "lose" but credit the other side with more than they are worth! In this case the mistake would be coming away thinking that the media and advertising market is unbiased and impartial, unpolitical, complete and that it's coverage - especially on topics of national security concern - is credible. Walking away with that mistake I think would be the most illustrative of how easy it is for people to be swallowed by fallacious reasoning.
- fucking_tragedy 10y ago
  It is. There are currently two popular narratives about the media going on in the US right now 1) The inherently liberal mainstream media is conspiring against Trump and the silent majority 2) Fake news sites have a lot of traction in social media circles and are influencing decision making A lot of the sources cited by people in camp 1 are the sources being complained about in camp 2.
  - mjn 10y ago
    I may be missing the bigger picture here, but it seems like you could simultaneously believe these two things. Even if you're a conservative who believes most mainstream media is biased towards liberals, isn't there a clear difference between say, Breitbart, which is a right-wing news/opinion site, and the recent flood of WordPress blogs set up by teenagers in Bulgaria that pump out outright fabricated clickbait news for money? Why would right-wing politics require you to defend the latter?
    - hackuser 10y ago
      Why would it require you to defend the former? Because they have a brand name doesn't make them any more truthful, and they have a long track record of hate and lies.
      - skylan_q 10y ago
        ...and they have a long track record of hate and lies. So does every left-leaning outlet. See what I did there?
        hackuser 10y ago
        > So does every left-leaning outlet / See what I did there? I see you typed some letters in a comment box. But doing that that doesn't create truth or fact. What separates real knowledge from a string of letters?

cmdrfred 10y ago

Agreed. Corporations exist only to seek profit, it is indeed the executive staffs duty to do so, there should be a law of economics that states: "With every corporate action, there exists a profit motive”

kristjansson 10y ago

Isn't the complaint about 'fake news' that it's false, not that it's from a non-traditional source?

xnull2guest 10y ago
No, it's motivated that way to get support, but it's about source and credibility. Namely, the traditional media market is an advertising platform: it makes its money by selling stories and perspectives in the form of media narrative to its audience. Large corporations and governments contract with the media to determine what those stories are. You will get stories, and entertaining ones, sure. But it's hardly "true" in the true/false sense. It's like asking if the story Goldilocks is true or false. It isn't either. Indeed, that news media industry sold stories to the American people to - for example - get them into the Iraq war. This was a combination of very true and also false facts. You could point to any particular story and argue pointlessly about whether the individual story was true or false, like Goldilocks. Because of widespread distrust of the 'narrative morals' of mainstream media, alternatives have been appearing. There is a desire by information moguls - both public and private industry - to maintain credibility and to make in various forms alternative narratives not feasible. For public appeal, selective choices are being taken to highlight articles with clearly fabricated facts, with the message being: all alternatives are like this. The first part is true: there exist articles that are complete bullshit both inside and outside the main "credible" media industry. But the second part is not. There's plenty of very well researched, very well documented, very well analysed information that does not get any play in the mainstream media. I remember recently an audio recording of John Kerry talking to Syrian rebel forces was leaked. I got the NYT take. And then I listened to the leaked audio. The content was completely different than the NYT tried to make it out to be and in some cases the point Kerry was making was the exact opposite of the NYT had published. In this case, it was quite clear what the political implications would be of honestly reporting on the content, and including the parts that were selectively edited out.
- hackuser 10y ago
  I believe that discrediting all serious news media is part of the same general disinformation campaign as the 'fake news'. For one, it's a very standard, expected strategy for such campaigns: The only solution to masses fake information is the credibility of some sources; we trust them to sort through the mess and find the truth. If you want to sow confusion, an obvious tactic is to attack the credibility of the trusted sources. In the U.S., the right-wing bloggers, Fox, etc. have openly done this for many years. For another, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. This "MSM" is not a monolithic group, but very many competing organizations. Any criticism that seems, on its face, poorly thought through.
  - xnull2guest 10y ago
    This comment is so confusing. It points out that the media industry isn't a monolithic group that is composed of competing organizations, and therefore not subject to scrutiny. Then it argues that "fake news", which isn't a monolithic group and is composed of competing organizations, is collaborating and subjects it to scrutiny. I think you're right about the second part. Alternative narratives are going to question - rightfully - the narratives for the current media market. That's the strategic thing to do. But I think you're wrong about the first part for the same reason you are right about the second. Establishment narratives are going to question - rightfully - the narratives of the alternative media market. That's the strategic thing to do. It's important to mention that while modern media companies compete, they compete on a very particular basis: to tell the better publicly endorsed narrative. Deviating from that endorsed narrative gets the organization in trouble (AP during the Obama Administration), loses them access, and loses them incredibly important government contracts. It's also important to not take sides and then try to work backwards to determine who you believe (you'll end up in a circle of cognitive bias, I think well illustrated by what you've posted so far). Looking at the arguments of both the mainstream media and alternative outlets on their own merits is important. What I suspect you'll find is that both are right. Alternative outlets have their own biases, and ones you might not agree with! But you'll also find that establishment media is deeply biased and incredibly compromised in terms of credibility, everything from whitewashing war crimes, excusing government torture and covering Snowden documents as "bulk collection" rather than "mass surveillance". That is, if you're apt to make intellectual mistakes like thinking in black and white and ideological totality - you're bound to not only discredit the side that you want to "lose" but credit the other side with more than they are worth! In this case the mistake would be coming away thinking that the media and advertising market is unbiased and impartial, unpolitical, complete and that it's coverage - especially on topics of national security concern - is credible. Walking away with that mistake I think would be the most illustrative of how easy it is for people to be swallowed by fallacious reasoning.
fucking_tragedy 10y ago
It is. There are currently two popular narratives about the media going on in the US right now 1) The inherently liberal mainstream media is conspiring against Trump and the silent majority 2) Fake news sites have a lot of traction in social media circles and are influencing decision making A lot of the sources cited by people in camp 1 are the sources being complained about in camp 2.
- mjn 10y ago
  I may be missing the bigger picture here, but it seems like you could simultaneously believe these two things. Even if you're a conservative who believes most mainstream media is biased towards liberals, isn't there a clear difference between say, Breitbart, which is a right-wing news/opinion site, and the recent flood of WordPress blogs set up by teenagers in Bulgaria that pump out outright fabricated clickbait news for money? Why would right-wing politics require you to defend the latter?
  - hackuser 10y ago
    Why would it require you to defend the former? Because they have a brand name doesn't make them any more truthful, and they have a long track record of hate and lies.
    - skylan_q 10y ago
      ...and they have a long track record of hate and lies. So does every left-leaning outlet. See what I did there?
      - hackuser 10y ago
        > So does every left-leaning outlet / See what I did there? I see you typed some letters in a comment box. But doing that that doesn't create truth or fact. What separates real knowledge from a string of letters?