5 ms·

>Without any of them, Trump still would've won. Then why is Breitbart planning to expand into the French and German markets precisely on the eve of French and

>Without any of them, Trump still would've won. Then why is Breitbart planning to expand into the French and German markets precisely on the eve of French and German elections? Do we think that these websites themselves actually believe they have no political influence, when they seem to be deliberately operating as ad-fueled propaganda outlets for the far-right? And don't think I'm just being partisan. If World Socialist Web Site was pulling this stuff I wouldn't be happy either.

lintiness 10y ago
trust me when i tell you: you are partisan.
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> why is Breitbart planning to expand into the French and German markets From this observation alone, we can't distinguish between (a) Breitbart expanding to pitch its values to voters who don't currently hold them (a political motive), (b) Breitbart expanding to serve its content to voters already favourable to its views (an economic motive), or (c) some combination thereof.
- throwaway5752 10y ago
  Objective truth does exist, and I think a lot of us who believe that also believe that you are engaging in a false choice fallacy. edit: to be clear, I think Bannon continues to use his platform to achieve concrete political, electoral political ends and shouldn't be viewed through the lens of a media corporation's metrics (profitability or audience)
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    I believe Breitbart publishes crap. The comment I responded to ascribes a motive to their expansion. That requires more evidence. Consider, for example, the fake news which came out of Macedonia this past cycle [1]. We can objectively agree it's crap. We can reasonably disagree as to whether the authors were principally motivated by economic or political carrots. [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fake-news-macedonia-teen-shows-how-its-done/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fake-news-macedonia-teen-shows-h...
    - ForrestN 10y ago
      Steve Bannon, of Breitbart, has spoken and written about his desire to tear down civic institutions within the United States and use Breitbart as a platform for the new wave of White Nationalists. The evidence is quite clear in the case of Breitbart.
      - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
        > [Bannon's] desire...the evidence is quite clear We disagree on what can be objectively known. I don't think one can know another's internal mind state. Motives exist purely in minds. Fact: Bannon has spoken and written about these desires. Fact: Breitbar publishes crap. Fact(ish): Breitbart's expansion into Germany will likely have a negative impact on its election quality and sociopolitical stability. Not a fact: what motivates the people at Breitbart to do this. Part of combatting fake news is basing decisions and discussions around what can be objectively agreed upon.
        ForrestN 10y ago
        If your point is a philosophical one about the nature of knowledge then we have gone far afield of the comment you were responding to. The leader of Breitbart has publicly announced a strategy to change the United States' political and governmental norms. He is now arguably the most powerful figure in the Trump administration, which has already begun pursuing that strategy. Breitbart's actions in other countries are consistent with that strategy. True, maybe the deepest motive for Bannon's stated strategy is that he wants to angrily reject his father's scorn and through world domination (or at least world destabilization) finally earn his love and thus be able to love himself. But that's not really the subject at hand. "Fake News" is just rebranded propaganda. Systematically trying to convince the public of lies is bad, regardless of motive. But we can also see clearly the first order motives of the people behind most of this current wave of propaganda even if we can't follow a chain of causality back to the deepest motives of human nature.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - bluecalm 10y ago
    Objective truth does exist in many areas but it doesn't matter. Most of the news served is about the commentary and claims which are not verifiable. Consider those two versions of commentary on the same event: "Obama is a secret Muslim who wants to stick it to Israel by not vetoing UN resolution" vs "Obama finally recognizes that US has to respect Geneva conventions - not vetoing an act of respect for the law and human rights"). Both tell a story of factual event (Obama administration not vetoing a resolution US usually vetoes) and both add opinionated commentary which can't easily (if at all) be verified. Is either of those fake news? I not then you won't catch the thing people complaining about fake news rage about. If yes you are venturing Ministry of Truth territory - state run censorship known all too well for anyone growing up in communist states of Central/Eastern Europe.
maratd 10y ago
> And don't think I'm just being partisan. You are just being partisan. The notion that somehow fake news is a thing, that it misleads people, or that it affects elections is ridiculous. It's an excuse for losing an election and avoiding blame. Fake news has been a part of our media since forever. Go read the tabloids. People enjoy that stuff and that's all it is, entertainment. Would you ban tabloids from newsstands too?
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >You are just being partisan. I just don't think the two sides are equivalent here. AFAIK, there is no far-left fake news website with the same revenue or audience numbers as the far-right has right now. The far-right is winning. If you side with them, go ahead and be happy, but I don't think I've said anything false by merely noting that they're succeeding in their stated goals of making money and spreading their views. >Fake news has been a part of our media since forever. Go read the tabloids. People enjoy that stuff and that's all it is, entertainment. Would you ban tabloids from newsstands too? I'm not advocating banning anything. I'm advocating that ordinary journalistic standards should apply to anything which markets itself as journalism.
  - bluecalm 10y ago
    By far right do you mean Breitbart? I mean Breitbart is big and profitable and it seems the competition on far left isn't doing that well (salon, vox, motherjones). If we move a bit more to the center I think left is winning by big margin. Right side has Fox News, left side has CNN, MSBNC, Huffington Post, New York Times, Washington Post there is also clear very visible political bias of big technology firms like Facebook, Google, Twitter and Reddit which play a big role in controlling the narrative. I think you are very wrong about "far right" or even "right" winning. People vote for them more often than in the past because their narrative resonates with what people find important at this point in time but they don't get anywhere close to fair share of media, let alone win.
  - maratd 10y ago
    > AFAIK, there is no far-left fake news website with the same revenue or audience numbers as the far-right has right now. Why is this a competition you want to win? Seems like a race to the bottom. > I'm advocating that ordinary journalistic standards should apply to anything which markets itself as journalism. There are no universal "journalistic standards". There are standard to which specific outlets hold themselves to and that's great, but that's hardly an argument to holding others to the same standard. I have no expectation that The Sun holds itself to the same standard as The New York Times and frankly, I wouldn't want them to.
ForrestN 10y ago
Sorry for the downvotes, you're exactly right. The far right in western countries (being directly funded in some cases by The Kremlin) realizes that propaganda has long been and remains an effective technique to swing elections. The rest of society is struggling to admit this reality and face it. In the examples of both Trump and Brexit, the majority of people who voted for the eventual result reveal to pollsters that they did so based on erroneous beliefs that happen to have been supported by these propaganda campaigns. Had the public understood the truth about Brexit's economic implications or Hillary Clinton's debunked conspiracies, those elections would certainly have flipped. One side is actively pushing the public away from the truth, and the resulting ignorance is swaying elections. There is nothing partisan about the above observations by eli_gottleib. They are true observations. The forceful assertion that the truth is now partisan is exactly part of the same problem that society now faces. A distorted symmetry of blame means that one side of a debate can act in bad faith and lie constantly and people will line up to call anyone who'd question them "partisan."
- ForrestN 10y ago
  Note to self (and eli_gottleib): never afflict the comfortable (read: wealthy technocrats or wealthy technocrats-in-training) with the truth!
  - throwaway5752 10y ago
    It's just HN karma, it's an imaginary number that together with $2.50 will buy you a cup of coffee :)
    - ForrestN 10y ago
      Ill will (disguised as principled disapproval) from a community you identify with is a bit sad, to be honest.
ralfn 10y ago
All media outlets have political power and its hard to regulate the truth without abuse. But! As a society or a culture, it is smart to make sure whoever participates in your internal and cultural debate is not an outside force and participates in both directions: they should have an editor that has will defend their editorial choices. Somebody that lives in the same country and is part of culture. This is more about facebook wanting to be both Reddit and the NYT. Either allow it all or have your editioral choices made by a local resident that like a newspaper will be available for questions.
rudolf0 10y ago
Well, for one, Breitbart is partisan/ideological news, not fake news. You could ask the same question of left-leaning sources (NYT, WaPo, Huffington, many more) that support Democratic candidates before an election. Obviously most news outlets will try to influence elections in some way, if they have an editorial stance. And sure, sometimes they may have enough influence to actually shift an election. But "fake news" like "FBI agent murdered by Hillary" or Pizzagate nonsense is a blip on the radar compared to all of the other news sources out there. Those hoax stories probably did not tip the US election at all.

lintiness 10y ago

trust me when i tell you: you are partisan.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

> why is Breitbart planning to expand into the French and German markets From this observation alone, we can't distinguish between (a) Breitbart expanding to pitch its values to voters who don't currently hold them (a political motive), (b) Breitbart expanding to serve its content to voters already favourable to its views (an economic motive), or (c) some combination thereof.

throwaway5752 10y ago
Objective truth does exist, and I think a lot of us who believe that also believe that you are engaging in a false choice fallacy. edit: to be clear, I think Bannon continues to use his platform to achieve concrete political, electoral political ends and shouldn't be viewed through the lens of a media corporation's metrics (profitability or audience)
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  I believe Breitbart publishes crap. The comment I responded to ascribes a motive to their expansion. That requires more evidence. Consider, for example, the fake news which came out of Macedonia this past cycle [1]. We can objectively agree it's crap. We can reasonably disagree as to whether the authors were principally motivated by economic or political carrots. [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fake-news-macedonia-teen-shows-how-its-done/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fake-news-macedonia-teen-shows-h...
  - ForrestN 10y ago
    Steve Bannon, of Breitbart, has spoken and written about his desire to tear down civic institutions within the United States and use Breitbart as a platform for the new wave of White Nationalists. The evidence is quite clear in the case of Breitbart.
    - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
      > [Bannon's] desire...the evidence is quite clear We disagree on what can be objectively known. I don't think one can know another's internal mind state. Motives exist purely in minds. Fact: Bannon has spoken and written about these desires. Fact: Breitbar publishes crap. Fact(ish): Breitbart's expansion into Germany will likely have a negative impact on its election quality and sociopolitical stability. Not a fact: what motivates the people at Breitbart to do this. Part of combatting fake news is basing decisions and discussions around what can be objectively agreed upon.
      - ForrestN 10y ago
        If your point is a philosophical one about the nature of knowledge then we have gone far afield of the comment you were responding to. The leader of Breitbart has publicly announced a strategy to change the United States' political and governmental norms. He is now arguably the most powerful figure in the Trump administration, which has already begun pursuing that strategy. Breitbart's actions in other countries are consistent with that strategy. True, maybe the deepest motive for Bannon's stated strategy is that he wants to angrily reject his father's scorn and through world domination (or at least world destabilization) finally earn his love and thus be able to love himself. But that's not really the subject at hand. "Fake News" is just rebranded propaganda. Systematically trying to convince the public of lies is bad, regardless of motive. But we can also see clearly the first order motives of the people behind most of this current wave of propaganda even if we can't follow a chain of causality back to the deepest motives of human nature.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
- bluecalm 10y ago
  Objective truth does exist in many areas but it doesn't matter. Most of the news served is about the commentary and claims which are not verifiable. Consider those two versions of commentary on the same event: "Obama is a secret Muslim who wants to stick it to Israel by not vetoing UN resolution" vs "Obama finally recognizes that US has to respect Geneva conventions - not vetoing an act of respect for the law and human rights"). Both tell a story of factual event (Obama administration not vetoing a resolution US usually vetoes) and both add opinionated commentary which can't easily (if at all) be verified. Is either of those fake news? I not then you won't catch the thing people complaining about fake news rage about. If yes you are venturing Ministry of Truth territory - state run censorship known all too well for anyone growing up in communist states of Central/Eastern Europe.

maratd 10y ago

> And don't think I'm just being partisan. You are just being partisan. The notion that somehow fake news is a thing, that it misleads people, or that it affects elections is ridiculous. It's an excuse for losing an election and avoiding blame. Fake news has been a part of our media since forever. Go read the tabloids. People enjoy that stuff and that's all it is, entertainment. Would you ban tabloids from newsstands too?

eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>You are just being partisan. I just don't think the two sides are equivalent here. AFAIK, there is no far-left fake news website with the same revenue or audience numbers as the far-right has right now. The far-right is winning. If you side with them, go ahead and be happy, but I don't think I've said anything false by merely noting that they're succeeding in their stated goals of making money and spreading their views. >Fake news has been a part of our media since forever. Go read the tabloids. People enjoy that stuff and that's all it is, entertainment. Would you ban tabloids from newsstands too? I'm not advocating banning anything. I'm advocating that ordinary journalistic standards should apply to anything which markets itself as journalism.
- bluecalm 10y ago
  By far right do you mean Breitbart? I mean Breitbart is big and profitable and it seems the competition on far left isn't doing that well (salon, vox, motherjones). If we move a bit more to the center I think left is winning by big margin. Right side has Fox News, left side has CNN, MSBNC, Huffington Post, New York Times, Washington Post there is also clear very visible political bias of big technology firms like Facebook, Google, Twitter and Reddit which play a big role in controlling the narrative. I think you are very wrong about "far right" or even "right" winning. People vote for them more often than in the past because their narrative resonates with what people find important at this point in time but they don't get anywhere close to fair share of media, let alone win.
- maratd 10y ago
  > AFAIK, there is no far-left fake news website with the same revenue or audience numbers as the far-right has right now. Why is this a competition you want to win? Seems like a race to the bottom. > I'm advocating that ordinary journalistic standards should apply to anything which markets itself as journalism. There are no universal "journalistic standards". There are standard to which specific outlets hold themselves to and that's great, but that's hardly an argument to holding others to the same standard. I have no expectation that The Sun holds itself to the same standard as The New York Times and frankly, I wouldn't want them to.

ForrestN 10y ago

Sorry for the downvotes, you're exactly right. The far right in western countries (being directly funded in some cases by The Kremlin) realizes that propaganda has long been and remains an effective technique to swing elections. The rest of society is struggling to admit this reality and face it. In the examples of both Trump and Brexit, the majority of people who voted for the eventual result reveal to pollsters that they did so based on erroneous beliefs that happen to have been supported by these propaganda campaigns. Had the public understood the truth about Brexit's economic implications or Hillary Clinton's debunked conspiracies, those elections would certainly have flipped. One side is actively pushing the public away from the truth, and the resulting ignorance is swaying elections. There is nothing partisan about the above observations by eli_gottleib. They are true observations. The forceful assertion that the truth is now partisan is exactly part of the same problem that society now faces. A distorted symmetry of blame means that one side of a debate can act in bad faith and lie constantly and people will line up to call anyone who'd question them "partisan."

ForrestN 10y ago
Note to self (and eli_gottleib): never afflict the comfortable (read: wealthy technocrats or wealthy technocrats-in-training) with the truth!
- throwaway5752 10y ago
  It's just HN karma, it's an imaginary number that together with $2.50 will buy you a cup of coffee :)
  - ForrestN 10y ago
    Ill will (disguised as principled disapproval) from a community you identify with is a bit sad, to be honest.

ralfn 10y ago

All media outlets have political power and its hard to regulate the truth without abuse. But! As a society or a culture, it is smart to make sure whoever participates in your internal and cultural debate is not an outside force and participates in both directions: they should have an editor that has will defend their editorial choices. Somebody that lives in the same country and is part of culture. This is more about facebook wanting to be both Reddit and the NYT. Either allow it all or have your editioral choices made by a local resident that like a newspaper will be available for questions.

rudolf0 10y ago

Well, for one, Breitbart is partisan/ideological news, not fake news. You could ask the same question of left-leaning sources (NYT, WaPo, Huffington, many more) that support Democratic candidates before an election. Obviously most news outlets will try to influence elections in some way, if they have an editorial stance. And sure, sometimes they may have enough influence to actually shift an election. But "fake news" like "FBI agent murdered by Hillary" or Pizzagate nonsense is a blip on the radar compared to all of the other news sources out there. Those hoax stories probably did not tip the US election at all.