5 ms·

The fake news meme has been cooked up by the mainstream media to shift blame for Clinton's loss on new media. Nobody cared about fake news on Facebook. Meanwhil

The fake news meme has been cooked up by the mainstream media to shift blame for Clinton's loss on new media. Nobody cared about fake news on Facebook. Meanwhile the mainstream media lied and manipulated the truth to suit their narrative constantly. These trusted publications took advantage of their reader's trust to lie to them, causing far greater damage than any fake Facebook article. A great example is how the New York Times and the "fact checkers" used a reporter's disability to lie to their readers. As a liberal, Zuckerberg is particularly vulnerable to criticism from the liberal media. He should "do a Trump" and tell them to f off. [1]http://newslines.org/blog/lets-talk-about-fake-news/ http://newslines.org/blog/lets-talk-about-fake-news/

akerro 10y ago
NYT admitted they were biased against Trump, spreading fake news and putting Trump in bad light, publishing pro-Clinton stories. They were digging into Trumps family more and completely ignored Clintons family, mostly ignored her bribed and Podesta emails - only because blaming Trump was more trendy.
- skj 10y ago
  Citation?
  - akerro 10y ago
    https://nypost.com/2016/11/14/the-new-york-times-cant-improve-until-it-admits-bias/ https://nypost.com/2016/11/14/the-new-york-times-cant-improv...
    - mcintyre1994 10y ago
      Where is the bit where NYT admitted it? Your link seems to be the opposite, making accusations NYT denied.
    - CmdrSprinkles 10y ago
      ... That is an incredibly biased editorial from a competing newspaper. Not the NYT admitting any of the things you claimed See, this is kind of what people mean by "fake news". It isn't "Our sources were wrong" as with the Iraqi WMDs and instead "We made up some sources and completely distorted things to push our agenda"
  - nunobrito 10y ago
    Not sure if they have admitted the obvious bias. Especially after reading: "We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team." http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-times-we-blew-it-on-trump/ http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-times-we-blew-it-on-tr...
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
dictum 10y ago
From that 1984 quote, > Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then? There's an interesting parallel between two political/cultural phenomena, even though they're only discussed by opposite groups: - Believing in fake information that confirms your beliefs, and - Believing that self-identification beats all other indications.
TorKlingberg 10y ago
This seems like relativism. Regular media isn't perfect, so therefore blatant lies are fine. Is this embracing the "post-truth society"? It no longer matters what is true, only what gets the most likes/shares/upvotes.
- cthor 10y ago
  I think the point being made is that Facebook, NYT, et al. are not in a position to moralise about journalistic ethics. I would go further and say that the half-truths being peddled by these outlets are far more dangerous than obvious non-truths peddled by "fake news" outlets, because seeing through their lies is much harder. If we live in a world where "fake news" has been successfully censored, but the merely partisan outlets remain, the only result is people being lulled into a false sense of security: "It has to be true -- fake news is banned!"
  - karmelapple 10y ago
    I'd argue it's not worse. I've ran across many people with higher ed degrees sharing fake news, sincerely thinking they have shared a reasonably-researched article. I'm talking news from a website which says it publishes stories that are not true - but are not humor - on its about page. When that fake news reinforces their perspective, they simply clicked share because they liked how it sounds. Every time when I've pointed out something was blatantly false, they also sincerely said thank you, including one person admitting they couldn't tell the difference between a reasonably-researched news site and one that is not.
  - EarthIsHome 10y ago
    > these outlets are far more dangerous than obvious non-truths peddled by "fake news" outlets While apparently obvious to us, fake news articles are being shared by more people than factual news. [0][1] > If we live in a world where "fake news" has been successfully censored There's a difference between fake news and partisan news: one is flat out lies the other is factually true. Fake news is more akin to false advertising than censorship is. No one says that banning false advertising is censorship; banning false advertising is keeping people from buying products based on lies. [0]: https://imgur.com/xJ7eDbs https://imgur.com/xJ7eDbs [1]: https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-...
return0 10y ago
> Nobody cared about fake news on Facebook And crucially nobody cared during the thousands of elections/uprisings around the world in which facebook played a role.

akerro 10y ago

NYT admitted they were biased against Trump, spreading fake news and putting Trump in bad light, publishing pro-Clinton stories. They were digging into Trumps family more and completely ignored Clintons family, mostly ignored her bribed and Podesta emails - only because blaming Trump was more trendy.

skj 10y ago
Citation?
- akerro 10y ago
  https://nypost.com/2016/11/14/the-new-york-times-cant-improve-until-it-admits-bias/ https://nypost.com/2016/11/14/the-new-york-times-cant-improv...
  - mcintyre1994 10y ago
    Where is the bit where NYT admitted it? Your link seems to be the opposite, making accusations NYT denied.
  - CmdrSprinkles 10y ago
    ... That is an incredibly biased editorial from a competing newspaper. Not the NYT admitting any of the things you claimed See, this is kind of what people mean by "fake news". It isn't "Our sources were wrong" as with the Iraqi WMDs and instead "We made up some sources and completely distorted things to push our agenda"
- nunobrito 10y ago
  Not sure if they have admitted the obvious bias. Especially after reading: "We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team." http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-times-we-blew-it-on-trump/ http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-times-we-blew-it-on-tr...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

dictum 10y ago

From that 1984 quote, > Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then? There's an interesting parallel between two political/cultural phenomena, even though they're only discussed by opposite groups: - Believing in fake information that confirms your beliefs, and - Believing that self-identification beats all other indications.

TorKlingberg 10y ago

This seems like relativism. Regular media isn't perfect, so therefore blatant lies are fine. Is this embracing the "post-truth society"? It no longer matters what is true, only what gets the most likes/shares/upvotes.

cthor 10y ago
I think the point being made is that Facebook, NYT, et al. are not in a position to moralise about journalistic ethics. I would go further and say that the half-truths being peddled by these outlets are far more dangerous than obvious non-truths peddled by "fake news" outlets, because seeing through their lies is much harder. If we live in a world where "fake news" has been successfully censored, but the merely partisan outlets remain, the only result is people being lulled into a false sense of security: "It has to be true -- fake news is banned!"
- karmelapple 10y ago
  I'd argue it's not worse. I've ran across many people with higher ed degrees sharing fake news, sincerely thinking they have shared a reasonably-researched article. I'm talking news from a website which says it publishes stories that are not true - but are not humor - on its about page. When that fake news reinforces their perspective, they simply clicked share because they liked how it sounds. Every time when I've pointed out something was blatantly false, they also sincerely said thank you, including one person admitting they couldn't tell the difference between a reasonably-researched news site and one that is not.
- EarthIsHome 10y ago
  > these outlets are far more dangerous than obvious non-truths peddled by "fake news" outlets While apparently obvious to us, fake news articles are being shared by more people than factual news. [0][1] > If we live in a world where "fake news" has been successfully censored There's a difference between fake news and partisan news: one is flat out lies the other is factually true. Fake news is more akin to false advertising than censorship is. No one says that banning false advertising is censorship; banning false advertising is keeping people from buying products based on lies. [0]: https://imgur.com/xJ7eDbs https://imgur.com/xJ7eDbs [1]: https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-...

return0 10y ago

> Nobody cared about fake news on Facebook And crucially nobody cared during the thousands of elections/uprisings around the world in which facebook played a role.