3 ms·

No, they supported a narrative that was false by refusing to investigating claims by officials - that's planted fake news, and that news was created at publicat

by dilemma 10y ago

No, they supported a narrative that was false by refusing to investigating claims by officials - that's planted fake news, and that news was created at publication. News don't exist if it isn't published, that is its definition. Officials supplied the false information which served as the raw material the media's fake news was produced with.

75j 10y ago
I tend to agree with you. I'm looking at the NYT archives right now and finding examples both of uncritical quoting of official sources and straight up assertions about WMDs in Iraq. This is a famous quote from Judith Miller and Michael Gordon, from an article that includes many hawkish quotes from anonymous sources. "Mr. Hussein's dogged insistence on pursuing his nuclear ambitions, along with what defectors described in interviews as Iraq's push to improve and expand Baghdad's chemical and biological arsenals, have brought Iraq and the United States to the brink of war." http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/08/world/threats-responses-iraqis-us-says-hussein-intensifies-quest-for-bomb-parts.html http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/08/world/threats-responses-ir... Here's a quote from an opinion piece by William Safire: "Two terrorist-sponsoring nations are racing to acquire nuclear weapons. One is Iraq, whose scientists already have the know-how..." http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/10/opinion/arafat-s-implausible-denials.html http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/10/opinion/arafat-s-implausib... Is this fake news? I'd say so. But, I have an even lesser criterion for fake news -- I think the most insidious type of fake news doesn't necessarily tell a single lie, but rather selectively reports the truth. I am also 100% certain that it's impossible to filter out "fake news", whatever your definition is, without suppressing some true but fringe information.

by dilemma 10y ago

75j 10y ago

I tend to agree with you. I'm looking at the NYT archives right now and finding examples both of uncritical quoting of official sources and straight up assertions about WMDs in Iraq. This is a famous quote from Judith Miller and Michael Gordon, from an article that includes many hawkish quotes from anonymous sources. "Mr. Hussein's dogged insistence on pursuing his nuclear ambitions, along with what defectors described in interviews as Iraq's push to improve and expand Baghdad's chemical and biological arsenals, have brought Iraq and the United States to the brink of war." http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/08/world/threats-responses-iraqis-us-says-hussein-intensifies-quest-for-bomb-parts.html http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/08/world/threats-responses-ir... Here's a quote from an opinion piece by William Safire: "Two terrorist-sponsoring nations are racing to acquire nuclear weapons. One is Iraq, whose scientists already have the know-how..." http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/10/opinion/arafat-s-implausible-denials.html http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/10/opinion/arafat-s-implausib... Is this fake news? I'd say so. But, I have an even lesser criterion for fake news -- I think the most insidious type of fake news doesn't necessarily tell a single lie, but rather selectively reports the truth. I am also 100% certain that it's impossible to filter out "fake news", whatever your definition is, without suppressing some true but fringe information.