> Whether a media chose to call immigrants "illegal immigrants" or "asylum seekers" denoted bias in one direction or another. Its not helpful criteria, because

> Whether a media chose to call immigrants "illegal immigrants" or "asylum seekers" denoted bias in one direction or another. Its not helpful criteria, because according to it any media is biased. I agree with idea of unavoidable bias. One cannot speak unbiased. But this idea devalue the concept of "bias" and makes it useless. This idea moves us from binary black and white views (biased/unbiased) to unary gray, where everything share the same gray color of bias. Therefore this idea is destructive one, it reduces acutness of our mind. Such an idea have an official name, its fallacy of gray: http://lesswrong.com/lw/mm/the_fallacy_of_gray/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/mm/the_fallacy_of_gray/ > The easiest way to tell facts from opinion is to take multiple sources opposed politically, and compare what they have in common and in which way they differ. Facts may be inferred that way. You have switched problem, while discussing "fake news". The problem is not ability of truth seeker to infer facts. Problem is inability of the most ppl cope with loads of contradictory data. This problem becomes more urgent because of fake news -- the news that spreads lies. This problem can grow to a level when skilled truth seeker would lose his ability to infer facts. To see clearly and to be able to infer facts you need some solid ground of stable views, but when everything can be a lie and you cannot see no single certain truth, you would lose ability to think. You know, I'm russian and I had passed through such an experience a few years ago when propaganda struck especially hard. Moreover being a teenager I constantly was at such a state and had no ability to infer facts because at 90th the soviet truths was happily destroyed but democratic truths appeared to be a leaky cover for a corruption. There was no single word of truth. Fake news is a problem, because they create a great ocean of lies with small spreaded islands of truth in it. Ppl would get lost in this ocean and would stop believing into anything. Even sight of the land near the horizon they would call a "mirage" or "illusion", being unable to see difference beetwing a truth and a lie. They would laugh at you, if you try to persuade them that "illusion" is not an illusion, they would think that either you are lying, or just have no enough life experience to stop believing in mirages. One needs a criteria which is able to differenciate information to truth and lies. Such a criteria could be a nominal scale (aristotelian true/false) or ratio scale (like bayesian reasoning use), but the scale is not have such an importance as existence of criteria does. A little offtop, but nevertheless... I think Putin have such a popularity in Russia because he have created stable Truth. Yes, from outside this truth doesn't look true, but from inside it is true. This Truth makes world (as ppl see it) stable, predictable and ppl likes Putin for this stability. Fake news will not make americans to seek such a stability, but thay have power to move americans one step toward seeking. Ohm, they already moved: we speak now about pluses and minuses of censorship, that can bring some certainty to news industry.