5 ms·

What is the boundary between what we consider "fake news" and news with a tiny kernel of truth somewhere in it (in this story it sounds like a semi-related lapt

by divbit 10y ago

What is the boundary between what we consider "fake news" and news with a tiny kernel of truth somewhere in it (in this story it sounds like a semi-related laptop was infected with some malware) that is sensationalized to claim something much broader? I think that there are some pieces of news (e.g. meme-news that people post on social media sites, that would be similar to what one might read in a tabloid) that get automatically rejected by my BS filter a lot easier than something like the piece mentioned in the article, which was posted by a respectable journal.

mtgx 10y ago
If we can't create a common sense and universally accepted definition of fake news that's also specific enough, then no attempts to ban "fake news" should even be made. In my book, manufacturing 90% of the story based on a "small kernel of truth" still counts as fake news, but perhaps others disagree. This stuff can lead to war (McCain actually called this an act of war from Russia, after reading the original WashPost article), and in fact it has. Unsurprisingly WashPost was a big part of pushing the U.S. into the Iraq war as well. https://www.democracynow.org/2004/8/13/washington_post_admits_it_buried_anti https://www.democracynow.org/2004/8/13/washington_post_admit... No lessons learned, it seems.
- cloakandswagger 10y ago
  In many ways it is worse in my opinion. Blatantly false stories (like the one claiming Trump won the popular vote) are easily and quickly debunked. WaPo's brand of exaggerated stories based on a small kernel of truth is a lot more insidious and persistent.
  - ternaryoperator 10y ago
    > Blatantly false stories (like the one claiming Trump won the popular vote) are easily and quickly debunked. If only. How long has the claim that Clinton runs a child abuse ring through a Washington DC pizzeria been going on? The Obama birther controversy? These things are very difficult to debunk even in the presence of clear contrary information.
colordrops 10y ago
There isn't any value in establishing an arbitrary boundary. A small clickbait blog with a story that is 100% manufactured typically has less effect on public opinion than a mainstream outlet that publishes half or quarter truths. They are both doing a huge disservice to the public and are ethically bankrupt, and shouldn't even be called journalists.
tootie 10y ago
WaPo published entirely facts and revised their headline to be more accurate. Their initial statement was not really wrong as much it implied a deeper penetration than what actually happened.

by divbit 10y ago

mtgx 10y ago

If we can't create a common sense and universally accepted definition of fake news that's also specific enough, then no attempts to ban "fake news" should even be made. In my book, manufacturing 90% of the story based on a "small kernel of truth" still counts as fake news, but perhaps others disagree. This stuff can lead to war (McCain actually called this an act of war from Russia, after reading the original WashPost article), and in fact it has. Unsurprisingly WashPost was a big part of pushing the U.S. into the Iraq war as well. https://www.democracynow.org/2004/8/13/washington_post_admits_it_buried_anti https://www.democracynow.org/2004/8/13/washington_post_admit... No lessons learned, it seems.

cloakandswagger 10y ago
In many ways it is worse in my opinion. Blatantly false stories (like the one claiming Trump won the popular vote) are easily and quickly debunked. WaPo's brand of exaggerated stories based on a small kernel of truth is a lot more insidious and persistent.
- ternaryoperator 10y ago
  > Blatantly false stories (like the one claiming Trump won the popular vote) are easily and quickly debunked. If only. How long has the claim that Clinton runs a child abuse ring through a Washington DC pizzeria been going on? The Obama birther controversy? These things are very difficult to debunk even in the presence of clear contrary information.

colordrops 10y ago

There isn't any value in establishing an arbitrary boundary. A small clickbait blog with a story that is 100% manufactured typically has less effect on public opinion than a mainstream outlet that publishes half or quarter truths. They are both doing a huge disservice to the public and are ethically bankrupt, and shouldn't even be called journalists.

tootie 10y ago

WaPo published entirely facts and revised their headline to be more accurate. Their initial statement was not really wrong as much it implied a deeper penetration than what actually happened.