5 ms·

The sudden obsession with "fake news" started last November after the election. Why then? The big media also seems very discontent that Trump uses social media

The sudden obsession with "fake news" started last November after the election. Why then? The big media also seems very discontent that Trump uses social media to communicate his news with people directly, bypassing the middlemen.

bjt2n3904 10y ago
> Why then? My personal opinion? Doubling down on why they lost. Much easier to point fingers. </opinion> In all seriousness though, the ability to manipulate media is nothing new. What about "fake comments", or vote spamming?
RikNieu 10y ago
I remember when I heard that Trump had won, in contrast to what all the media sources "knew" about the outcome before. My first thought was, "Wonder what the narrative would be on this one. I smell a bull market for scapegoats right about now." And, hey! Whaddya know, a week or so afterwards and we have this fake news fetish.
awfgylbcxhrey 10y ago
I think it's simply because the election cycle was excellent fodder for the already-increasing fake news trend. Incidentally, here's an interesting podcast episode where they track down and interview a fake news producer. I don't recall them getting into specific timelines or an in-depth analysis of the trend, unfortunately: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/12/02/504155809/episode-739-finding-the-fake-news-king http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/12/02/504155809/episo...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
mcintyre1994 10y ago
Yup, I'm still trying to figure out if this whole thing is overblown or people actually consider things they see on Facebook to be reliable. I've never seen a news article on Facebook that wasn't by a news source I already knew about, and considered that to be reliable. Facebook just doesn't optimise for that, obviously. It just seems so obvious that the content on Facebook around news is and always has been trash that I'm amazed if enough people actually took it seriously enough for it to matter in the election.
- potatosoup 10y ago
  If anything, the content of the e-mail leaks (that the intelligence report from the other day confirmed to be authentic, although this was also known from verifying DKIM signatures) had a bigger impact.
- yellow_viper 10y ago
  I'm also concerned about who gets to decide what fake news is and filter it out. The 'real news' networks barely covered any of the DNC leaks
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > The 'real news' networks barely covered any of the DNC leaks That is not true at all. Fox covered it heavily, as far as I know; the New York Times and Washington Post both seemed to publish a new articles on the topic daily; CNN seemed to cover it heavily. Who didn't cover that story?
    - rokosbasilisk 10y ago
      Cnn covered the dnc leaks in a extraordinary biased way. Telling people it was illegal for them to view it themselves. Also the huffington post, cnn, msnbc, wapo, and nytimes did not cover it objectively. I hear tons of complaints from Bernie Supporters still to this day on campus.
      - hackuser 10y ago
        > Cnn covered the dnc leaks in a extraordinary biased way. Telling people it was illegal for them to view it themselves. I find this hard to believe. Can you back up any of these claims?
        grzm 10y ago
        Chris Cuomo on CNN: “Also interesting is, remember, it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents. It’s different for the media. So everything you learn about this, you’re learning from us.” This has been interpreted by some as you can't view or read them, as you likely need to download them, at least in your browser, to be able to view them. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/17/remember-its-illegal-to-possess-wikileaks-clinton-emails-but-its-different-for-the-media-says-cnns-chris-cuomo/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
skybrian 10y ago
A lot of people thought Hillary would win anyway, so they didn't care as much that some people believe crazy things. A mistake this big is a wake-up call.
hackuser 10y ago
> The sudden obsession with "fake news" started last November after the election That's not what I saw. There was plenty of coverage before that of the tidal wave of false information. In fact, fact-checking Trump's statements was a major issue and frequently reported.
- rokosbasilisk 10y ago
  Google trends suggest the opposite. It spiked right after the election. https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%2012-m&q=fake%20news https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%2012-m&q=fa...
  - hackuser 10y ago
    Thanks for providing some data. Maybe the term started being used then, but not the concept. At least in my information bubble, it was an ongoing issue.
    - rokosbasilisk 10y ago
      It seems wrong and honestly disingenious to dismiss the term fake news and its narrative just because you've heard it once before. Thats an anecdote, and we've had things like batboy and fake news about hillary clinton since the 90s. Also the huge spike on google trends right after the election is undoubtedly important and meaningful.
      - hackuser 10y ago
        Please reread my actual words. That's not what I wrote.
forgottenpass 10y ago
Why then? Because Trump won, and people saw this as a failing of the news to inform. And ignoring for a second the assumption that a better informed populus would have naturally voted Clinton... The finger was easier to point at hack "news" blogs than admit the organizations that are supposed to make up the respectable press outlets were all complicit in failing to focus on topics of good governance (candidates' positions, issues and suitability for office) instead preferred to focus on the horse race and reality show-esque manufactured drama.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  > And ignoring for a second the assumption that a better informed populus would have naturally voted Clinton... Exactly. There are a bunch of people who knew all about Trump's lies, distortions of reality, character flaws, and so on, and voted for him anyway. Why is that? Hillary was a deeply flawed candidate. First, she was the establishment candidate. This wasn't a good election to be wearing that mantle. Next, she gave off the vibe that she felt she was entitled to the presidency. There were more than two decades of scandals (never mind how much actual fire there was; after two decades of smoke surrounding her, people were sick of it). Her email servers were a very bad look; it gave the impression that she wanted to hide stuff so it wouldn't come back to haunt her during her presidential run, and it also gave the impression that she thought rules were for other people. The allegations of pay for play with the Clinton Foundation was a continuation of the corruption allegations, but it was very fresh. And for the working class, their financial position mostly got worse under Obama, and Clinton was viewed as a continuation of that. But sure, blame people voting for Trump on fake news. (For the record, I'm a conservative who could not in good conscience vote either for Trump or Hillary, but who was cheering for Hillary on election night because I viewed Trump as more dangerous.)
  - forgottenpass 10y ago
    The line you quoted was written because I wanted to focus on a different part of a faulty reasoning chain. I wanted to step over it entirely without agreeing or disagreeing. For what it's worth, I think it's a massively erroneous assumption. But it's also one I'm not particularly interested in discussing in the context of this thread.

bjt2n3904 10y ago

> Why then? My personal opinion? Doubling down on why they lost. Much easier to point fingers. </opinion> In all seriousness though, the ability to manipulate media is nothing new. What about "fake comments", or vote spamming?

RikNieu 10y ago

I remember when I heard that Trump had won, in contrast to what all the media sources "knew" about the outcome before. My first thought was, "Wonder what the narrative would be on this one. I smell a bull market for scapegoats right about now." And, hey! Whaddya know, a week or so afterwards and we have this fake news fetish.

awfgylbcxhrey 10y ago

I think it's simply because the election cycle was excellent fodder for the already-increasing fake news trend. Incidentally, here's an interesting podcast episode where they track down and interview a fake news producer. I don't recall them getting into specific timelines or an in-depth analysis of the trend, unfortunately: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/12/02/504155809/episode-739-finding-the-fake-news-king http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/12/02/504155809/episo...

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

mcintyre1994 10y ago

Yup, I'm still trying to figure out if this whole thing is overblown or people actually consider things they see on Facebook to be reliable. I've never seen a news article on Facebook that wasn't by a news source I already knew about, and considered that to be reliable. Facebook just doesn't optimise for that, obviously. It just seems so obvious that the content on Facebook around news is and always has been trash that I'm amazed if enough people actually took it seriously enough for it to matter in the election.

potatosoup 10y ago
If anything, the content of the e-mail leaks (that the intelligence report from the other day confirmed to be authentic, although this was also known from verifying DKIM signatures) had a bigger impact.
yellow_viper 10y ago
I'm also concerned about who gets to decide what fake news is and filter it out. The 'real news' networks barely covered any of the DNC leaks
- hackuser 10y ago
  > The 'real news' networks barely covered any of the DNC leaks That is not true at all. Fox covered it heavily, as far as I know; the New York Times and Washington Post both seemed to publish a new articles on the topic daily; CNN seemed to cover it heavily. Who didn't cover that story?
  - rokosbasilisk 10y ago
    Cnn covered the dnc leaks in a extraordinary biased way. Telling people it was illegal for them to view it themselves. Also the huffington post, cnn, msnbc, wapo, and nytimes did not cover it objectively. I hear tons of complaints from Bernie Supporters still to this day on campus.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      > Cnn covered the dnc leaks in a extraordinary biased way. Telling people it was illegal for them to view it themselves. I find this hard to believe. Can you back up any of these claims?
      - grzm 10y ago
        Chris Cuomo on CNN: “Also interesting is, remember, it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents. It’s different for the media. So everything you learn about this, you’re learning from us.” This has been interpreted by some as you can't view or read them, as you likely need to download them, at least in your browser, to be able to view them. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/17/remember-its-illegal-to-possess-wikileaks-clinton-emails-but-its-different-for-the-media-says-cnns-chris-cuomo/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

skybrian 10y ago

A lot of people thought Hillary would win anyway, so they didn't care as much that some people believe crazy things. A mistake this big is a wake-up call.

hackuser 10y ago

> The sudden obsession with "fake news" started last November after the election That's not what I saw. There was plenty of coverage before that of the tidal wave of false information. In fact, fact-checking Trump's statements was a major issue and frequently reported.

rokosbasilisk 10y ago
Google trends suggest the opposite. It spiked right after the election. https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%2012-m&q=fake%20news https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%2012-m&q=fa...
- hackuser 10y ago
  Thanks for providing some data. Maybe the term started being used then, but not the concept. At least in my information bubble, it was an ongoing issue.
  - rokosbasilisk 10y ago
    It seems wrong and honestly disingenious to dismiss the term fake news and its narrative just because you've heard it once before. Thats an anecdote, and we've had things like batboy and fake news about hillary clinton since the 90s. Also the huge spike on google trends right after the election is undoubtedly important and meaningful.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      Please reread my actual words. That's not what I wrote.

forgottenpass 10y ago

Why then? Because Trump won, and people saw this as a failing of the news to inform. And ignoring for a second the assumption that a better informed populus would have naturally voted Clinton... The finger was easier to point at hack "news" blogs than admit the organizations that are supposed to make up the respectable press outlets were all complicit in failing to focus on topics of good governance (candidates' positions, issues and suitability for office) instead preferred to focus on the horse race and reality show-esque manufactured drama.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
> And ignoring for a second the assumption that a better informed populus would have naturally voted Clinton... Exactly. There are a bunch of people who knew all about Trump's lies, distortions of reality, character flaws, and so on, and voted for him anyway. Why is that? Hillary was a deeply flawed candidate. First, she was the establishment candidate. This wasn't a good election to be wearing that mantle. Next, she gave off the vibe that she felt she was entitled to the presidency. There were more than two decades of scandals (never mind how much actual fire there was; after two decades of smoke surrounding her, people were sick of it). Her email servers were a very bad look; it gave the impression that she wanted to hide stuff so it wouldn't come back to haunt her during her presidential run, and it also gave the impression that she thought rules were for other people. The allegations of pay for play with the Clinton Foundation was a continuation of the corruption allegations, but it was very fresh. And for the working class, their financial position mostly got worse under Obama, and Clinton was viewed as a continuation of that. But sure, blame people voting for Trump on fake news. (For the record, I'm a conservative who could not in good conscience vote either for Trump or Hillary, but who was cheering for Hillary on election night because I viewed Trump as more dangerous.)
- forgottenpass 10y ago
  The line you quoted was written because I wanted to focus on a different part of a faulty reasoning chain. I wanted to step over it entirely without agreeing or disagreeing. For what it's worth, I think it's a massively erroneous assumption. But it's also one I'm not particularly interested in discussing in the context of this thread.