4 ms·

Iraq having wmds will probably be looked back as the start of fake news peddled by the mainstream media outlets.

drewbuschhorn 10y ago
That wasn't fake news. Fake news is knowingly spreading news which is either a hoax or likely to be a hoax. Reporting information from a credible government source based on facts in evidence, is simply reporting. The facts supplied to the reporter might be wrong, or their conclusion might be faulty, but as long as it's based on evidence and in good faith, it's not 'fake news'.
- rokosbasilisk 10y ago
  Journalists reiterating the government without critical reasoning isnt journalism. Its propaganda.
  - drewbuschhorn 10y ago
    I said, "based on facts in evidence." A good faith reading of what I wrote would assume I meant a "reasonable" reporter who has done the journalistic standard in the US of cross checking sources, critically examining the information.
    - rokosbasilisk 10y ago
      Which Im saying didnt happen with Iraq. So where the reasonable reporters then, and why should we believe anything has changed.
      - drewbuschhorn 10y ago
        A reasonable reporter can follow journalistic procedure properly and still be misled, it's a probabilistic exercise. Reducing news media into 'fake news' and 'always perfectly correct' is a 'false dilemma' fallacy.
        rokosbasilisk 10y ago
        Thats not what Im saying at all. Im not creating a false dilemma fallacy. Iraq didnt have wmds, journalists reiterated official talking points uncritically, even as intelligence officers came out to say otherwise. What happened with Iraq was a great example of fake news propaganda and the failure of journalism lately, because it was soo wrong not even close to "perfectly correct" or correct anything.
        drewbuschhorn 10y ago
        I think the main stream media's report on it at the time was reasonable to the facts available (though a quo bono on it should, and did, make some outlets question the evidence). You can't judge decisions in the past based on new evidence unless you can show those original decision makers had the evidence.
        rokosbasilisk 10y ago
        I think we have different core axioms and are at an impasse. I think due to the extreme nature of war, journalists largely failed their responsibilty, and what we know today confirms it. The large amount of human misery it created was too great a cost, and the refusal to learn lessons from it is a huge tragedy. Thank you for the fairly civil discussion.
        drewbuschhorn 10y ago
        Thank you too, at least now we've worked down to what we really disagree about. GG
        narrowrail 10y ago
        I think you should revisit this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#The_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#The_Iraq_War
- gaius 10y ago
  as long as it's based on evidence and in good faith, it's not 'fake news'. Infowars passes that test. It's the job of the press not to take things at face value. That's why the US has laws protecting the press, so it can go up against the government. If they are not doing that then they have stopped being journalists and started being paid propagandists.
  - drewbuschhorn 10y ago
    sigh, if you consider "Soros-funded radicals want civil war" (infowars front page currently) a good faith statement, then we're working from different axioms and can't have a real conversation.
    - gaius 10y ago
      I believe that they believe it, which means they are acting in good faith.
      - drewbuschhorn 10y ago
        I don't believe they believe it, and that means we're at an unarguable impasse without starting to bring evidence in.
        gaius 10y ago
        You think they're purely in it for the clicks? If so, how is that distinct from a "real" newspaper (whatever that means these days)?
        drewbuschhorn 10y ago
        I do. I start from the assumption they're reasonable men like me, then compare their ledes to the evidence proffered in the story, and the strength of the conclusion. Infowars fails that test for me, and as a crosscheck, people who have earned my trust. The New York Times passes that test for me, and people who have earned my trust. I'd forgotten we're not supposed to do political arguments on HN (which I suppose really everything is), so I concede, you win the argument and the internet points.
- AReallyGoodName 10y ago
  I remember news articles about 'clear links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam' doing the rounds. There was no evidence whatsoever, not one single report. Yet it spread. Heck there were even intelligence analysts going public saying 'hey guys there's absolutely no evidence of such links' (see Andrew Wilkie).
ksherlock 10y ago
Remember the Maine.
- gus_massa 10y ago
  I have to use my google-powers to understand your comment. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_(ACR-1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_(ACR-1) > The cause and responsibility for her sinking remained unclear after a board of inquiry investigated. Nevertheless, popular opinion in the U.S., fanned by inflammatory articles printed in the "Yellow Press" by William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, blamed Spain. The phrase, "remember the Maine, to Hell with Spain", became a rallying cry for action, which came with the Spanish–American War later that year. Try to avoid writing oneliners in HN.

That wasn't fake news. Fake news is knowingly spreading news which is either a hoax or likely to be a hoax. Reporting information from a credible government source based on facts in evidence, is simply reporting. The facts supplied to the reporter might be wrong, or their conclusion might be faulty, but as long as it's based on evidence and in good faith, it's not 'fake news'.

rokosbasilisk 10y ago
Journalists reiterating the government without critical reasoning isnt journalism. Its propaganda.
- drewbuschhorn 10y ago
  I said, "based on facts in evidence." A good faith reading of what I wrote would assume I meant a "reasonable" reporter who has done the journalistic standard in the US of cross checking sources, critically examining the information.
  - rokosbasilisk 10y ago
    Which Im saying didnt happen with Iraq. So where the reasonable reporters then, and why should we believe anything has changed.
    - drewbuschhorn 10y ago
      A reasonable reporter can follow journalistic procedure properly and still be misled, it's a probabilistic exercise. Reducing news media into 'fake news' and 'always perfectly correct' is a 'false dilemma' fallacy.
      - rokosbasilisk 10y ago
        Thats not what Im saying at all. Im not creating a false dilemma fallacy. Iraq didnt have wmds, journalists reiterated official talking points uncritically, even as intelligence officers came out to say otherwise. What happened with Iraq was a great example of fake news propaganda and the failure of journalism lately, because it was soo wrong not even close to "perfectly correct" or correct anything.
        drewbuschhorn 10y ago
        I think the main stream media's report on it at the time was reasonable to the facts available (though a quo bono on it should, and did, make some outlets question the evidence). You can't judge decisions in the past based on new evidence unless you can show those original decision makers had the evidence.
        rokosbasilisk 10y ago
        I think we have different core axioms and are at an impasse. I think due to the extreme nature of war, journalists largely failed their responsibilty, and what we know today confirms it. The large amount of human misery it created was too great a cost, and the refusal to learn lessons from it is a huge tragedy. Thank you for the fairly civil discussion.
        drewbuschhorn 10y ago
        Thank you too, at least now we've worked down to what we really disagree about. GG
      - narrowrail 10y ago
        I think you should revisit this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#The_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#The_Iraq_War
gaius 10y ago
as long as it's based on evidence and in good faith, it's not 'fake news'. Infowars passes that test. It's the job of the press not to take things at face value. That's why the US has laws protecting the press, so it can go up against the government. If they are not doing that then they have stopped being journalists and started being paid propagandists.
- drewbuschhorn 10y ago
  sigh, if you consider "Soros-funded radicals want civil war" (infowars front page currently) a good faith statement, then we're working from different axioms and can't have a real conversation.
  - gaius 10y ago
    I believe that they believe it, which means they are acting in good faith.
    - drewbuschhorn 10y ago
      I don't believe they believe it, and that means we're at an unarguable impasse without starting to bring evidence in.
      - gaius 10y ago
        You think they're purely in it for the clicks? If so, how is that distinct from a "real" newspaper (whatever that means these days)?
        drewbuschhorn 10y ago
        I do. I start from the assumption they're reasonable men like me, then compare their ledes to the evidence proffered in the story, and the strength of the conclusion. Infowars fails that test for me, and as a crosscheck, people who have earned my trust. The New York Times passes that test for me, and people who have earned my trust. I'd forgotten we're not supposed to do political arguments on HN (which I suppose really everything is), so I concede, you win the argument and the internet points.
AReallyGoodName 10y ago
I remember news articles about 'clear links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam' doing the rounds. There was no evidence whatsoever, not one single report. Yet it spread. Heck there were even intelligence analysts going public saying 'hey guys there's absolutely no evidence of such links' (see Andrew Wilkie).

ksherlock 10y ago

Remember the Maine.

gus_massa 10y ago
I have to use my google-powers to understand your comment. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_(ACR-1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_(ACR-1) > The cause and responsibility for her sinking remained unclear after a board of inquiry investigated. Nevertheless, popular opinion in the U.S., fanned by inflammatory articles printed in the "Yellow Press" by William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, blamed Spain. The phrase, "remember the Maine, to Hell with Spain", became a rallying cry for action, which came with the Spanish–American War later that year. Try to avoid writing oneliners in HN.