2 ms·
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
by 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 agoIn 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.