6 ms·

No, there is a very big difference between professional journos who sometimes have bias - and completely fake news. 'Fake news' sites reports information that

No, there is a very big difference between professional journos who sometimes have bias - and completely fake news. 'Fake news' sites reports information that is completely fabricated and non-factual. 'News sites' - by and large - are pretty good. Most stories on CNN and Fox are not biased. Go ahead to their web-sites - it's mostly boring stuff. Some of their headlines, and their choice of words etc. is arguably biased, but it's difficult to pin down. To fail to differentiate between 'lies' and 'facts presented in a certain way' is wrong. You don't have to 'fully trust' the MSM, but if you are open minded enough and pull from enough sources, then you'll do ok. The 'fake news sites' are run by kids in Macedonia trying to get clicks and it's a total fabrication.

cookiecaper 10y ago
If it was just about kids in Macedonia, it'd be collapsed into Google's ordinary anti-spam techniques and it wouldn't be newsworthy. John Oliver wouldn't have dedicated the half-hour to, ironically and bizarrely, attempting to deflect the blame for Clinton's loss onto social platforms like Facebook and Twitter. It is equal parts hilarious and depressing that they would expect anyone to buy that. The American people resoundingly rejected the MSM/establishment narrative on Nov 8. The establishment responded by shouting "You kids need to get off your computers! I know what's best for you!" (even more astonishing, the world's tech conglomerates appear to agree). The meltdown here is, frankly, dumbfounding. For the record, I'm all for shutting down plagiarized and spam sites. But the tech companies have already been doing that for years. "Fake news" is fake news.
sparkzilla 10y ago
Oh come on. The mainstream media make up news all the time. For example, the New York Times manufactured the story of Trump mocking a reporter's disability. Then they sent in their fact checkers to validate the lie. More here: http://newslines.org/blog/lets-talk-about-fake-news/ http://newslines.org/blog/lets-talk-about-fake-news/
- spdustin 10y ago
  You're aware that many of us watched it on video, right? EDIT: Context at the time matters, and revising the intention later without regard for behavioral patterns of condescension and shaming is disingenuous. As for fake news: if your particular vectors don't align with those of fake news readers, Facebook wont show them to you. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
  - sparkzilla 10y ago
    Read my article. The trump-mocked-a-reporter's-disability meme is total fiction, with plenty of video proof. The reason I chose it is because the narrative power pushed by the mainstream media is so strong that it's extremely difficult for anyone fed this lie to face the facts. Whether you believe it or not is a test of how strongly you were manipulated by the mainstream media into believing their narrative. These publications deliberately lied to their own readers, then they manufactured this "fake news" story to shift blame for their lies onto Facebook and other new media.
norikki 10y ago
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/06/25/exp-presidential-candidate-donald-trump-immigration-intv-erin.cnn http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/06/25/exp-presidential-can... "Trump doubles down on calling Mexicans rapists". Trump did not call Mexicans rapists. That is an outright lie which is as much fake news as this hackathon project. It's not bias, it's not selective reporting, it's fake news that we're expected to believe as our only source of truth because sometimes people share Macedonian clickbait on their facebook. A lie is deliberately making someone believe something that you know is false. When George W. Bush made everyone think Iraq had nukes, that was a lie. You can't say it wasn't lying because it was merely 'tricking people into believing something false.' That is literally the definition of lying.
- edblarney 10y ago
  Here are Trump's words: "When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists." Trump is absolutely 'calling Mexicans rapists'. This is undeniable. Now - you can argue that the way CNN presents it lacks context, because Trump could be referring to 'Mexican migrants to the USA as rapists' - and not 'Mexicans in general' - or even more specifically 'some of them as rapists' - and not all of them. But this would be a little absurd - it would be like saying: "Canadians that visit America are rapists" ... and then trying to imply that you meant to say 'some Canadians who come to America are rapists' - which theoretically is probably be true, but the implication is basically absurd. CNN may not provide the right context for this fact - but it is a fact. Trump called Mexicans rapists.
  - insickness 10y ago
    "When Mexico sends its people" was in reference to illegal aliens. You can't simply say, "you can argue it was out of context." That's idiotic. I can quote you as saying 'Canadians that visit America are rapists' above as well, just like you can quote me as saying it. It doesn't mean I was saying that all Canadians that visit America are rapists.
ethagknight 10y ago
Go look at CNN's main instagram profile, and count how many posts are negative about Trump vs Clinton, respectively. I did not find a single negative post about Clinton, while numerous negative Trump posts. It is honestly astonishing to me that CNN could be so blatant about their bias. Nothing at all negative to report about Hillary when half the nation voted against her?
- edblarney 10y ago
  CNN is definitely biased - but they are not lying, and they are not an org that just makes up all their news out of thin air - which is the issue here. CNN: 'Trump is in New York today talking to potential candidates for Supreme Court, rumoured to be Ted Cruz'. Fake News Site: "Trump's income taxes leaked, indicates he's worth over $1 Trillion dollars, and won a US Olympic Gold Medal while competing under fake name to avoid spotlight"
  - aaron-lebo 10y ago
    CNN loves selective editing. See their editing of a victim's relative calling for people to riot and destroy suburbs vs. CNN's "victim calls for peace": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drn0Lg5gIRc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drn0Lg5gIRc What is that other than a lie? And if we can't call it a lie, what's our standard for truth and reality? That's not the only edit of theirs this this year. Of course they always correct themselves and "apologize" after the fact (or when they are caught), but they have remarkably poor standards for a news organization.
- untog 10y ago
  We're in dangerous false equivalency waters here. Just because CNN published something negative about Trump that doesnt mean they owe one negative story on Clinton. Nor should how anyone voted affect CNNs reporting - if all they do is follow what people already believe then what's the point in journalism? Whether they like it or not, Trump supporters are going to have to move on from Clinton. She doesn't matter any more, and CNN aren't going to be reporting on her. They'll be reporting, in depth, on everything Donald Trump does. As it should be.
TeMPOraL 10y ago
> 'News sites' - by and large - are pretty good. Most stories on CNN and Fox are not biased. Go ahead to their web-sites - it's mostly boring stuff. Except the ones that you happen to have first-hand knowledge about, or are withing your domain of expertise. Those particular stories are full of bullshit, but the rest are surely honest-to-God truth. See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12991655 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12991655. I too do not understand why this is so hard to internalize for almost everyone.

cookiecaper 10y ago

If it was just about kids in Macedonia, it'd be collapsed into Google's ordinary anti-spam techniques and it wouldn't be newsworthy. John Oliver wouldn't have dedicated the half-hour to, ironically and bizarrely, attempting to deflect the blame for Clinton's loss onto social platforms like Facebook and Twitter. It is equal parts hilarious and depressing that they would expect anyone to buy that. The American people resoundingly rejected the MSM/establishment narrative on Nov 8. The establishment responded by shouting "You kids need to get off your computers! I know what's best for you!" (even more astonishing, the world's tech conglomerates appear to agree). The meltdown here is, frankly, dumbfounding. For the record, I'm all for shutting down plagiarized and spam sites. But the tech companies have already been doing that for years. "Fake news" is fake news.

sparkzilla 10y ago

Oh come on. The mainstream media make up news all the time. For example, the New York Times manufactured the story of Trump mocking a reporter's disability. Then they sent in their fact checkers to validate the lie. More here: http://newslines.org/blog/lets-talk-about-fake-news/ http://newslines.org/blog/lets-talk-about-fake-news/

spdustin 10y ago
You're aware that many of us watched it on video, right? EDIT: Context at the time matters, and revising the intention later without regard for behavioral patterns of condescension and shaming is disingenuous. As for fake news: if your particular vectors don't align with those of fake news readers, Facebook wont show them to you. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
- sparkzilla 10y ago
  Read my article. The trump-mocked-a-reporter's-disability meme is total fiction, with plenty of video proof. The reason I chose it is because the narrative power pushed by the mainstream media is so strong that it's extremely difficult for anyone fed this lie to face the facts. Whether you believe it or not is a test of how strongly you were manipulated by the mainstream media into believing their narrative. These publications deliberately lied to their own readers, then they manufactured this "fake news" story to shift blame for their lies onto Facebook and other new media.

norikki 10y ago

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/06/25/exp-presidential-candidate-donald-trump-immigration-intv-erin.cnn http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/06/25/exp-presidential-can... "Trump doubles down on calling Mexicans rapists". Trump did not call Mexicans rapists. That is an outright lie which is as much fake news as this hackathon project. It's not bias, it's not selective reporting, it's fake news that we're expected to believe as our only source of truth because sometimes people share Macedonian clickbait on their facebook. A lie is deliberately making someone believe something that you know is false. When George W. Bush made everyone think Iraq had nukes, that was a lie. You can't say it wasn't lying because it was merely 'tricking people into believing something false.' That is literally the definition of lying.

edblarney 10y ago
Here are Trump's words: "When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists." Trump is absolutely 'calling Mexicans rapists'. This is undeniable. Now - you can argue that the way CNN presents it lacks context, because Trump could be referring to 'Mexican migrants to the USA as rapists' - and not 'Mexicans in general' - or even more specifically 'some of them as rapists' - and not all of them. But this would be a little absurd - it would be like saying: "Canadians that visit America are rapists" ... and then trying to imply that you meant to say 'some Canadians who come to America are rapists' - which theoretically is probably be true, but the implication is basically absurd. CNN may not provide the right context for this fact - but it is a fact. Trump called Mexicans rapists.
- insickness 10y ago
  "When Mexico sends its people" was in reference to illegal aliens. You can't simply say, "you can argue it was out of context." That's idiotic. I can quote you as saying 'Canadians that visit America are rapists' above as well, just like you can quote me as saying it. It doesn't mean I was saying that all Canadians that visit America are rapists.

ethagknight 10y ago

Go look at CNN's main instagram profile, and count how many posts are negative about Trump vs Clinton, respectively. I did not find a single negative post about Clinton, while numerous negative Trump posts. It is honestly astonishing to me that CNN could be so blatant about their bias. Nothing at all negative to report about Hillary when half the nation voted against her?

edblarney 10y ago
CNN is definitely biased - but they are not lying, and they are not an org that just makes up all their news out of thin air - which is the issue here. CNN: 'Trump is in New York today talking to potential candidates for Supreme Court, rumoured to be Ted Cruz'. Fake News Site: "Trump's income taxes leaked, indicates he's worth over $1 Trillion dollars, and won a US Olympic Gold Medal while competing under fake name to avoid spotlight"
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  CNN loves selective editing. See their editing of a victim's relative calling for people to riot and destroy suburbs vs. CNN's "victim calls for peace": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drn0Lg5gIRc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drn0Lg5gIRc What is that other than a lie? And if we can't call it a lie, what's our standard for truth and reality? That's not the only edit of theirs this this year. Of course they always correct themselves and "apologize" after the fact (or when they are caught), but they have remarkably poor standards for a news organization.
untog 10y ago
We're in dangerous false equivalency waters here. Just because CNN published something negative about Trump that doesnt mean they owe one negative story on Clinton. Nor should how anyone voted affect CNNs reporting - if all they do is follow what people already believe then what's the point in journalism? Whether they like it or not, Trump supporters are going to have to move on from Clinton. She doesn't matter any more, and CNN aren't going to be reporting on her. They'll be reporting, in depth, on everything Donald Trump does. As it should be.

TeMPOraL 10y ago

> 'News sites' - by and large - are pretty good. Most stories on CNN and Fox are not biased. Go ahead to their web-sites - it's mostly boring stuff. Except the ones that you happen to have first-hand knowledge about, or are withing your domain of expertise. Those particular stories are full of bullshit, but the rest are surely honest-to-God truth. See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12991655 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12991655. I too do not understand why this is so hard to internalize for almost everyone.