5 ms·

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 wh

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-...
  - tomp 10y ago
    I'm not sure we can use "number of shares" as a reliable metrics for how many people believe each piece of news. It's perfectly concievable that many people share it as "look at this obviously fake lie". I mean, how many shares do Onion articles get?
    - EarthIsHome 10y ago
      It's a reliable metric in describing the possible reach of fake news. There will be a sizeable portion who believe what they read. This is straight up fiction being spread masquerading as truth, which should deeply trouble everyone who cares about what is correct and what is not. Speaking anecdotally, I nor my friends would share news we believed was fake. Would you share the fake source knowing it is fake news or would you share links exposing and explaining a fake news article? > I mean, how many shares do Onion articles get? Go take a gander at The Onion's Facebook page and scroll trying to find a fake article that has more than 10,000 shares.
makomk 10y ago
There's a difference between "isn't perfect" and stuff like this: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-donald-trump.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-donal... The New York Times spend 30 paragraphs trying to tie Trump, Bannon and Breitbart to Nazi-quoting white supremacists through innuendo and insinuation, and then: "When asked about Mr. Bannon, the conference’s speakers said that they might have shaken his hand on occasion, but that they did not know him well. Mr. Brimelow said that he had met “Mr. Bannon once, earlier this summer, before he ascended to Olympus.” He said he had told Mr. Bannon that he was doing great work at Breitbart. “He agreed,” Mr. Brimelow recalled to the audience. As for Mr. Trump, Mr. Brimelow said he had met him about 30 years ago at a “conservative affinity meeting” in Manhattan. But that was it. “Trump and Steve Bannon are not alt-right people,” Mr. Brimelow said, adding that they had opportunistically seized on two issues that the alt-right cares most about — stopping immigration and fighting political correctness — and used them to mobilize white voters." Their entire narrative is basically bullshit, they went ahead with it anyway. and it worked. I've been seeing quotes from the article popping up all over Twitter as proof the next president is linked to Nazis. Once people have read paragraph after paragraph confirming their beliefs, they don't worry about minor details that call the whole thing into question. (This is a favourite trick of right-wing UK tabloid the Daily Mail.) Not only that, the group that the New York Times is writing about appears to be completely politically irrelevant... except for the coverage that papers like the NYT are giving them. They're pushing white supremacy into the mainstream because it suits their narrative.
- tim333 10y ago
  I read the article and it seems to mostly reporting the neo nazi types enthusiasm for Trump and Bannon. Do you think that shouldn't be reported? Are any facts incorrect? I'll give you there have been a lot of headlines in the MSM implying Bannon is anti-semitic while when you look into it appears he is not.

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-...
- tomp 10y ago
  I'm not sure we can use "number of shares" as a reliable metrics for how many people believe each piece of news. It's perfectly concievable that many people share it as "look at this obviously fake lie". I mean, how many shares do Onion articles get?
  - EarthIsHome 10y ago
    It's a reliable metric in describing the possible reach of fake news. There will be a sizeable portion who believe what they read. This is straight up fiction being spread masquerading as truth, which should deeply trouble everyone who cares about what is correct and what is not. Speaking anecdotally, I nor my friends would share news we believed was fake. Would you share the fake source knowing it is fake news or would you share links exposing and explaining a fake news article? > I mean, how many shares do Onion articles get? Go take a gander at The Onion's Facebook page and scroll trying to find a fake article that has more than 10,000 shares.

makomk 10y ago

There's a difference between "isn't perfect" and stuff like this: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-donald-trump.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-donal... The New York Times spend 30 paragraphs trying to tie Trump, Bannon and Breitbart to Nazi-quoting white supremacists through innuendo and insinuation, and then: "When asked about Mr. Bannon, the conference’s speakers said that they might have shaken his hand on occasion, but that they did not know him well. Mr. Brimelow said that he had met “Mr. Bannon once, earlier this summer, before he ascended to Olympus.” He said he had told Mr. Bannon that he was doing great work at Breitbart. “He agreed,” Mr. Brimelow recalled to the audience. As for Mr. Trump, Mr. Brimelow said he had met him about 30 years ago at a “conservative affinity meeting” in Manhattan. But that was it. “Trump and Steve Bannon are not alt-right people,” Mr. Brimelow said, adding that they had opportunistically seized on two issues that the alt-right cares most about — stopping immigration and fighting political correctness — and used them to mobilize white voters." Their entire narrative is basically bullshit, they went ahead with it anyway. and it worked. I've been seeing quotes from the article popping up all over Twitter as proof the next president is linked to Nazis. Once people have read paragraph after paragraph confirming their beliefs, they don't worry about minor details that call the whole thing into question. (This is a favourite trick of right-wing UK tabloid the Daily Mail.) Not only that, the group that the New York Times is writing about appears to be completely politically irrelevant... except for the coverage that papers like the NYT are giving them. They're pushing white supremacy into the mainstream because it suits their narrative.

tim333 10y ago
I read the article and it seems to mostly reporting the neo nazi types enthusiasm for Trump and Bannon. Do you think that shouldn't be reported? Are any facts incorrect? I'll give you there have been a lot of headlines in the MSM implying Bannon is anti-semitic while when you look into it appears he is not.