6 ms·

Tabloids have a long history of fabricating stories. Will they be held accountable? Whenever I read about fake-news it is generally associated with the alt-rig

by yomly 10y ago

Tabloids have a long history of fabricating stories. Will they be held accountable? Whenever I read about fake-news it is generally associated with the alt-right but people seem to forget that the established news are equally as guilty. I recall losing a lot of faith in the NYT when I read the Amazon expose and felt it read more like a vendetta piece/sensational than truthful objective journalism.

kuschku 10y ago
They already are. And this law just applies the laws that apply to the tabloids also to the web.
- detaro 10y ago
  Eh, the highest punishment for a newspaper generally is that they are forced to publish a retraction, and maybe civil damages for someone they reported about. I can't think of any law that explicitly punishes made up reports. Is there one I'm not aware of?
  - lb1lf 10y ago
    I'd guess that in many jurisdictions, some libel law could be used to slap them if the story names individuals or (some places) corporate entities. This probably would require the mentioned parties to sue, though - so no luck if it is a fake news story portraying someone in a positive light.
- yomly 10y ago
  But are they really held accountable? If they were they would stop doing it. A slap on the wrist fine that is filed under "cost of doing business" in their P&L isn't really accountability...
  - kuschku 10y ago
    They are held responsible in the same way as the news websites will be - if they remove the article fast enough, and publish an article that's equally visible retracting their previous statement, within of 24h, there won't be any punishment.
  - internaut 10y ago
    News organizations could post a bond on each article. Then they could lose money if they lie. For the main context of a story, for factual inaccuracies, for spelling mistakes, it could be contextual with different types of bonds. The question is how to verify, since these 'fact-checker' websites are a 'who guards the guards' problem.
chc 10y ago
There's a vast difference between a story that doesn't do the subject justice and a story that is completely false. Trying to put an unfairly negative spin on things is bad, for sure, but simply lying is worse. I don't think you've seen a lot of the fake news that has people concerned lately if you think they're equal.
- hawkice 10y ago
  Let's be clear: places like the BBC do _both_. Case and point: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002051.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002051.h... discusses this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4361563.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4361563.stm This is literally email spam. The whole point of the article is a lie designed to sell a ridiculously dumb product which absolutely does not work as described. This is arguably worse than fake news. Because it's spam! Note: I'd appreciate a law that penalizes this kind of lying. I admit there is potential for abuse, and that we'd need a good legal standard for getting something obviously wrong as opposed to just getting something wrong. But this has a massive social cost, and I think it's not unreasonable to balance out those massive social costs. Here's an idea: many news outlets sell access to their news. I should be able to sue them if they give me something that is not news. I also think there is an implied warranty for news sites, and so you should be able to sue even if you aren't paying. That's a legal theory that would work okay, probably.
  - vkou 10y ago
    Or better yet, if we remember back to the Libyan civil war, we have this BBC broadcast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_-lzI8I0_0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_-lzI8I0_0 With this BBC story to go with it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/9414812.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/9414812.stm Now, to summarize. 1. BBC claims there there are masses of people waving pre-Gaddafi flag in the middle of Tripoli, a red, green, and black tri-color. 2. BBC shows footage of people in India waving the Indian flag, a white, green, and gold tri-color. With a 'Live from Tripoli' caption on it. With the talking heads nodding their heads, and saying 'Yep, sure are a lot of Libyans protesting Gaddafi there.' 3. Coming soon - the debate in the House of Commons about how we need to bomb Gaddafi. How on Earth is this not fake news? What kind of collapse of process and journalistic integrity has to take place, in order to allow that sequence of events to happen? If they let such an obviously verifiable lie slip through, how often do they air unverifiable ones?
cylinder 10y ago
I thought NYT went down the toilet this election season (including primaries coverage of Bernie Sanders), but then I remember they strongly pushed the narrative of Iraq having WMD on behalf of the MIC and supported the invasion.
- vkou 10y ago
  It wasn't just the NYT - just about the entire fourth estate got on that bandwagon - with the whole nine yards of citing anonymous government sources, pictures of arrows pointed from Baghdad to New York and London, and testimonies of just how awful a dictator he was.
vkou 10y ago
The Amazon thing was one thing - it was opinionated, but at least it wasn't straight up lies. On the other hand... MSNBC running a fake news story to discredit Wikileaks. [1] The Washington Post runs a fake news expose on Russian propaganda efforts to spread fake news for the 2016 election. [2] It has since retracted its claims, so I guess there's that. [1] https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/a-clinton-fan-manufactured-fake-news-that-msnbc-personalities-spread-to-discredit-wikileaks-docs/ https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/a-clinton-fan-manufactur... [2] https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/ https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgrace...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
digler999 10y ago
You should read a tabloid sometime for fun. They really tread a fine line with how they "fabricate" their stories. They wont flat out say "ABC did XYZ". They use tons of weasel words and passive voice to avoid technically saying something untrue or provably false. * lie: ABC did XYZ * weasel: ABC *caught up in* XYZ affair. * weasel: Many people believe ABC did XYZ. * weasel: Sources familiar with XYZ *are hinting at* ABC's involvement. * weasel: ABC denies XYZ scandal. * weasel: source at the scene of XYZ may have seen ABC. * weasel: ABC's silence about XYZ hints possible involvement. * weasel: ABC *breaks his/her silence* about XYZ. (my all-time favorite) * weasel: ABC *was investigated for* XYZ involvement. * weasel: ABC explains his involvement in XYZ. { but it wasn't XYZ, it was an XYZ-*like* event from 3-decades ago }.
- vanderZwan 10y ago
  See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beck_v._Eiland-Hall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beck_v._Eiland-Hall
  - SCHiM 10y ago
    Wow that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I don't know any of the people involved, and I don't remember this. But reading the first few paragraphs have me siding with Glenn. Without taking into account the actual contents of the website, the domain name is more an accusation and assertion than 'satirical comedy'. If this were to happen to me I'd be trying everything I could to get it removed too.
    - vanderZwan 10y ago
      > I don't know any of the people involved, and I don't remember this. But reading the first few paragraphs have me siding with Glenn. Well, that might explain why you side with Glenn, since he's guilty of tactics like this himself. Which is exactly why the website was set up.
cygx 10y ago
Tabloids have a long history of fabricating stories. Will they be held accountable? Tabloids are held accountable through the justice system and can be sued by victims of defamation or hate speech. The issue at hand is that in contrast to traditional publishing houses, companies operating social media platforms aren't liable for the stories they distribute while to some degree still financially benefitting from the controversy. The laws under discussion are aimed at creating an incentive to react to the complaints of victims in a timely fashion.
whybroke 10y ago
Casting doubt on what constitutes a fact is core to the maintenance of power in a dictatorship. Those who now believe there is an equivalence between far-right propaganda (some of it originating form a hostile power) and the NYT, are a lost cause. It is identical to equating the bulk of the scientific community to a few climate change deniers. You obfuscate your own view of reality. You will find that individuals emerging from behind the iron curtain were more stunned by the accuracy of information and the absence of a surreal reality in the west than by anything else. As an aside, it's interesting the stunning amount of interest in guaranteeing the wide circulation of utterly false propaganda on a site that instantly mob censors any discussion of Russian hacking. A site called Hacker News (apparently ironically).
- rokosbasilisk 10y ago
  Dictatorships also commonly decide what is fake news, not just casting doubt on truth. Thats why they limit media companies and control the news so closely. This fake news narrative seems far more comfortable in a dictatorship then a free country. The new yorks times was clearly pushing an agenda this election which is what ruined its reputation and made it on par with various propaganda sites. A poor decision which has ruined its credibilty.
  - whybroke 10y ago
    If accurate information is in fact one sided, it will look like the purveyor is pushing an agenda. And in fact every competent news source including the Atlantic, WaPo, CNN, the Guardian, Forbes, the BBC, NHK and the Economist reported the same things. Free societies decry false propaganda and always have. Authoritarians decry accurate information as equivalent and any information contrary to their goals. But unfortunately there is no force on earth to dissuade the indoctrinated that there is no world wide conspiracy out to get them. That their facebook feed and extremest websites have no connection to reality. Particularly if they have found a charismatic leader to focus on who has no interest in accuracy. >...what ruined its reputation and made it on par with various propaganda sites... The is false. Generally, a thing does not become true simply because someone tweets it.

by yomly 10y ago

kuschku 10y ago

They already are. And this law just applies the laws that apply to the tabloids also to the web.

detaro 10y ago
Eh, the highest punishment for a newspaper generally is that they are forced to publish a retraction, and maybe civil damages for someone they reported about. I can't think of any law that explicitly punishes made up reports. Is there one I'm not aware of?
- lb1lf 10y ago
  I'd guess that in many jurisdictions, some libel law could be used to slap them if the story names individuals or (some places) corporate entities. This probably would require the mentioned parties to sue, though - so no luck if it is a fake news story portraying someone in a positive light.
yomly 10y ago
But are they really held accountable? If they were they would stop doing it. A slap on the wrist fine that is filed under "cost of doing business" in their P&L isn't really accountability...
- kuschku 10y ago
  They are held responsible in the same way as the news websites will be - if they remove the article fast enough, and publish an article that's equally visible retracting their previous statement, within of 24h, there won't be any punishment.
- internaut 10y ago
  News organizations could post a bond on each article. Then they could lose money if they lie. For the main context of a story, for factual inaccuracies, for spelling mistakes, it could be contextual with different types of bonds. The question is how to verify, since these 'fact-checker' websites are a 'who guards the guards' problem.

chc 10y ago

There's a vast difference between a story that doesn't do the subject justice and a story that is completely false. Trying to put an unfairly negative spin on things is bad, for sure, but simply lying is worse. I don't think you've seen a lot of the fake news that has people concerned lately if you think they're equal.

hawkice 10y ago
Let's be clear: places like the BBC do _both_. Case and point: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002051.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002051.h... discusses this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4361563.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4361563.stm This is literally email spam. The whole point of the article is a lie designed to sell a ridiculously dumb product which absolutely does not work as described. This is arguably worse than fake news. Because it's spam! Note: I'd appreciate a law that penalizes this kind of lying. I admit there is potential for abuse, and that we'd need a good legal standard for getting something obviously wrong as opposed to just getting something wrong. But this has a massive social cost, and I think it's not unreasonable to balance out those massive social costs. Here's an idea: many news outlets sell access to their news. I should be able to sue them if they give me something that is not news. I also think there is an implied warranty for news sites, and so you should be able to sue even if you aren't paying. That's a legal theory that would work okay, probably.
- vkou 10y ago
  Or better yet, if we remember back to the Libyan civil war, we have this BBC broadcast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_-lzI8I0_0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_-lzI8I0_0 With this BBC story to go with it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/9414812.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/9414812.stm Now, to summarize. 1. BBC claims there there are masses of people waving pre-Gaddafi flag in the middle of Tripoli, a red, green, and black tri-color. 2. BBC shows footage of people in India waving the Indian flag, a white, green, and gold tri-color. With a 'Live from Tripoli' caption on it. With the talking heads nodding their heads, and saying 'Yep, sure are a lot of Libyans protesting Gaddafi there.' 3. Coming soon - the debate in the House of Commons about how we need to bomb Gaddafi. How on Earth is this not fake news? What kind of collapse of process and journalistic integrity has to take place, in order to allow that sequence of events to happen? If they let such an obviously verifiable lie slip through, how often do they air unverifiable ones?

cylinder 10y ago

I thought NYT went down the toilet this election season (including primaries coverage of Bernie Sanders), but then I remember they strongly pushed the narrative of Iraq having WMD on behalf of the MIC and supported the invasion.

vkou 10y ago
It wasn't just the NYT - just about the entire fourth estate got on that bandwagon - with the whole nine yards of citing anonymous government sources, pictures of arrows pointed from Baghdad to New York and London, and testimonies of just how awful a dictator he was.

vkou 10y ago

The Amazon thing was one thing - it was opinionated, but at least it wasn't straight up lies. On the other hand... MSNBC running a fake news story to discredit Wikileaks. [1] The Washington Post runs a fake news expose on Russian propaganda efforts to spread fake news for the 2016 election. [2] It has since retracted its claims, so I guess there's that. [1] https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/a-clinton-fan-manufactured-fake-news-that-msnbc-personalities-spread-to-discredit-wikileaks-docs/ https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/a-clinton-fan-manufactur... [2] https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/ https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgrace...

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

digler999 10y ago

You should read a tabloid sometime for fun. They really tread a fine line with how they "fabricate" their stories. They wont flat out say "ABC did XYZ". They use tons of weasel words and passive voice to avoid technically saying something untrue or provably false. * lie: ABC did XYZ * weasel: ABC *caught up in* XYZ affair. * weasel: Many people believe ABC did XYZ. * weasel: Sources familiar with XYZ *are hinting at* ABC's involvement. * weasel: ABC denies XYZ scandal. * weasel: source at the scene of XYZ may have seen ABC. * weasel: ABC's silence about XYZ hints possible involvement. * weasel: ABC *breaks his/her silence* about XYZ. (my all-time favorite) * weasel: ABC *was investigated for* XYZ involvement. * weasel: ABC explains his involvement in XYZ. { but it wasn't XYZ, it was an XYZ-*like* event from 3-decades ago }.

vanderZwan 10y ago
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beck_v._Eiland-Hall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beck_v._Eiland-Hall
- SCHiM 10y ago
  Wow that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I don't know any of the people involved, and I don't remember this. But reading the first few paragraphs have me siding with Glenn. Without taking into account the actual contents of the website, the domain name is more an accusation and assertion than 'satirical comedy'. If this were to happen to me I'd be trying everything I could to get it removed too.
  - vanderZwan 10y ago
    > I don't know any of the people involved, and I don't remember this. But reading the first few paragraphs have me siding with Glenn. Well, that might explain why you side with Glenn, since he's guilty of tactics like this himself. Which is exactly why the website was set up.

cygx 10y ago

Tabloids have a long history of fabricating stories. Will they be held accountable? Tabloids are held accountable through the justice system and can be sued by victims of defamation or hate speech. The issue at hand is that in contrast to traditional publishing houses, companies operating social media platforms aren't liable for the stories they distribute while to some degree still financially benefitting from the controversy. The laws under discussion are aimed at creating an incentive to react to the complaints of victims in a timely fashion.

whybroke 10y ago

Casting doubt on what constitutes a fact is core to the maintenance of power in a dictatorship. Those who now believe there is an equivalence between far-right propaganda (some of it originating form a hostile power) and the NYT, are a lost cause. It is identical to equating the bulk of the scientific community to a few climate change deniers. You obfuscate your own view of reality. You will find that individuals emerging from behind the iron curtain were more stunned by the accuracy of information and the absence of a surreal reality in the west than by anything else. As an aside, it's interesting the stunning amount of interest in guaranteeing the wide circulation of utterly false propaganda on a site that instantly mob censors any discussion of Russian hacking. A site called Hacker News (apparently ironically).

rokosbasilisk 10y ago
Dictatorships also commonly decide what is fake news, not just casting doubt on truth. Thats why they limit media companies and control the news so closely. This fake news narrative seems far more comfortable in a dictatorship then a free country. The new yorks times was clearly pushing an agenda this election which is what ruined its reputation and made it on par with various propaganda sites. A poor decision which has ruined its credibilty.
- whybroke 10y ago
  If accurate information is in fact one sided, it will look like the purveyor is pushing an agenda. And in fact every competent news source including the Atlantic, WaPo, CNN, the Guardian, Forbes, the BBC, NHK and the Economist reported the same things. Free societies decry false propaganda and always have. Authoritarians decry accurate information as equivalent and any information contrary to their goals. But unfortunately there is no force on earth to dissuade the indoctrinated that there is no world wide conspiracy out to get them. That their facebook feed and extremest websites have no connection to reality. Particularly if they have found a charismatic leader to focus on who has no interest in accuracy. >...what ruined its reputation and made it on par with various propaganda sites... The is false. Generally, a thing does not become true simply because someone tweets it.