4 ms·

> publish blatantly or fictional stories and then be able to publicly denounce those stories and point out the fact that they were fiction Denounce those stori

by aikah 10y ago

> publish blatantly or fictional stories and then be able to publicly denounce those stories and point out the fact that they were fiction Denounce those stories by making $30k a month as a spammer ? that's how this guy "denounces the alt-right" ? and NPR buys that argument just like that ?

Gargoyle 10y ago
In all these interviews with fake news makers, I've been amused that people who are obvious experts at telling people what they want to hear are still telling people what they want to hear. And it sails right by the real journalists un-noted.
ec109685 10y ago
I don't think the NPR passed judgement as to whether it should be bought or not. They are letting us decide. My value judgement is that this is a terrible way to make money and it is unfortunate blatant lies are not somehow slander, despite it being about a prominent individual. The rolling stone was held liable for their false article about sexual assault. I wish this guy could be as well. He duped millions of people.
- aikah 10y ago
  > I don't think the NPR passed judgement as to whether it should be bought or not. They are letting us decide. How about they actually investigate and find out whether he is telling the truth or lying ? This isn't passing judgement , this is actual reporting. So he was lying back then but now he is telling the truth and "journalists" should not pass judgement ?
  - omginternets 10y ago
    They did investigate: they're telling us that this guy makes significant money from his activities. Draw your own conclusions. They don't have to engage in finger-wagging in order to be reporters.
    - aikah 10y ago
      > They did investigate: they're telling us that this guy makes significant money from his activities. Draw your own conclusions. They failed to debunk what he said. > They don't have to engage in finger-wagging in order to be reporters. Oh, now actual reporting is "finger-wagging".
  - icebraining 10y ago
    How about they actually investigate and find out whether he is telling the truth or lying? How? He's making a claim about his motivations, how do you expect them to investigate that?
- hanklazard 10y ago
  Agreed the whole thing is disgusting, but I'm actually very interested in the last part you said about duping millions of people. When I heard this story yesterday, I started wondering how many people's views were actually changed by these outlandish stories (the FBI agent found dead with apparent links to the clintons comes to mind). My guess would be that many of those who devoured this sort of story were only confirming their previously held biases about the corruption of the clintons--they just enjoyed having more reasons to hate them. I would also suspect that along the edges of this population, let's say people who are open to either party but have faced economic challenges over the last 10 years, there might be a cumulative effect of reading headlines like this every day on Facebook, even if you don't read the articles and assume they are fake. Something subconscious that holds more weight that a simple opinion post by a friend. Trump himself used a variation on this idea by simply parroting unfounded accusations, fake news headlines, and conspiracy theories to brand Hillary as a criminal. And maybe that effects all of us, to some degree. In an election where 1% swings in a few states could have changed the overall result, these effects may have been very important. I do think that FB, Google and others have the responsibility to prevent fabricated news stories from spreading like cancers.
- BeetleB 10y ago
  >He duped millions of people. Yes and no. I suspect those people would have voted for Trump anyway. I just got done reading The Righteous Mind (https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777 https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Relig...). After reading it, my default view on all these things: The final outcome is set in their mind, and they are merely looking for any reason to justify it. (I mean, sure, things are elastic. His articles do play a role - just not that much).
  - Tempest1981 10y ago
    Didn't the election come down to only ~0.1 million votes out of 125 million? Just saying it doesn't take much.
    - BeetleB 10y ago
      >Didn't the election come down to only ~0.1 million votes out of 125 million? Just saying it doesn't take much. It doesn't take much either way. In the key states, if only 1 out of 100 Trump voters went for Hilary, she would have won by a larger margin. Had she won, we would have been talking about how sanity prevailed, etc. But the reality is the race was close enough that it doesn't make sense to have a narrative about why either person won. It was close enough that you cannot say this person made a significant difference or not. If that sounds counterintuitive, think of it this way: List all the reasons you think Hilary failed (and not just external factors - include her own party's shortcomings). Any one of these being improved could have resulted in a win for her. To single out one entity and blame him is silly. She lost because the race was close and she did not do all she could to win. She didn't lose because one person was spreading fake news.

by aikah 10y ago

Gargoyle 10y ago

In all these interviews with fake news makers, I've been amused that people who are obvious experts at telling people what they want to hear are still telling people what they want to hear. And it sails right by the real journalists un-noted.

ec109685 10y ago

I don't think the NPR passed judgement as to whether it should be bought or not. They are letting us decide. My value judgement is that this is a terrible way to make money and it is unfortunate blatant lies are not somehow slander, despite it being about a prominent individual. The rolling stone was held liable for their false article about sexual assault. I wish this guy could be as well. He duped millions of people.

aikah 10y ago
> I don't think the NPR passed judgement as to whether it should be bought or not. They are letting us decide. How about they actually investigate and find out whether he is telling the truth or lying ? This isn't passing judgement , this is actual reporting. So he was lying back then but now he is telling the truth and "journalists" should not pass judgement ?
- omginternets 10y ago
  They did investigate: they're telling us that this guy makes significant money from his activities. Draw your own conclusions. They don't have to engage in finger-wagging in order to be reporters.
  - aikah 10y ago
    > They did investigate: they're telling us that this guy makes significant money from his activities. Draw your own conclusions. They failed to debunk what he said. > They don't have to engage in finger-wagging in order to be reporters. Oh, now actual reporting is "finger-wagging".
- icebraining 10y ago
  How about they actually investigate and find out whether he is telling the truth or lying? How? He's making a claim about his motivations, how do you expect them to investigate that?
hanklazard 10y ago
Agreed the whole thing is disgusting, but I'm actually very interested in the last part you said about duping millions of people. When I heard this story yesterday, I started wondering how many people's views were actually changed by these outlandish stories (the FBI agent found dead with apparent links to the clintons comes to mind). My guess would be that many of those who devoured this sort of story were only confirming their previously held biases about the corruption of the clintons--they just enjoyed having more reasons to hate them. I would also suspect that along the edges of this population, let's say people who are open to either party but have faced economic challenges over the last 10 years, there might be a cumulative effect of reading headlines like this every day on Facebook, even if you don't read the articles and assume they are fake. Something subconscious that holds more weight that a simple opinion post by a friend. Trump himself used a variation on this idea by simply parroting unfounded accusations, fake news headlines, and conspiracy theories to brand Hillary as a criminal. And maybe that effects all of us, to some degree. In an election where 1% swings in a few states could have changed the overall result, these effects may have been very important. I do think that FB, Google and others have the responsibility to prevent fabricated news stories from spreading like cancers.
BeetleB 10y ago
>He duped millions of people. Yes and no. I suspect those people would have voted for Trump anyway. I just got done reading The Righteous Mind (https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777 https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Relig...). After reading it, my default view on all these things: The final outcome is set in their mind, and they are merely looking for any reason to justify it. (I mean, sure, things are elastic. His articles do play a role - just not that much).
- Tempest1981 10y ago
  Didn't the election come down to only ~0.1 million votes out of 125 million? Just saying it doesn't take much.
  - BeetleB 10y ago
    >Didn't the election come down to only ~0.1 million votes out of 125 million? Just saying it doesn't take much. It doesn't take much either way. In the key states, if only 1 out of 100 Trump voters went for Hilary, she would have won by a larger margin. Had she won, we would have been talking about how sanity prevailed, etc. But the reality is the race was close enough that it doesn't make sense to have a narrative about why either person won. It was close enough that you cannot say this person made a significant difference or not. If that sounds counterintuitive, think of it this way: List all the reasons you think Hilary failed (and not just external factors - include her own party's shortcomings). Any one of these being improved could have resulted in a win for her. To single out one entity and blame him is silly. She lost because the race was close and she did not do all she could to win. She didn't lose because one person was spreading fake news.