4 ms·

Fake news is generally identified by the reputation of its author (New York Times vs Alt-Right Patriot Freedom Observer). Nothing published by the Times or Wall

Fake news is generally identified by the reputation of its author (New York Times vs Alt-Right Patriot Freedom Observer). Nothing published by the Times or Wall Street Journal (despite any editorial bias) is fake, simply because we know (except in the rare circumstance) that they apply journalistic integrity in sourcing and writing articles. Much of what's published on "fringe" sites, especially if no mainstream outlets cover it, is likely fake (i.e. if it's making a factual claim about the world, not just expressing an opinion). Obviously followers of these sites will fight back against any "fake" labels, by arguing there is a "cover-up" by organized opposition, that their truth is being suppressed, that any fake news classifier intrinsically has a liberal bias, and so on. The difficulty for me is not identifying what's fake, but convincing anyone else that it is.

RodericDay 10y ago
Man some of you guys seriously need to read Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky. I'm as anti-Trump as it gets, but the idea that NYT or WSJ are bastions of reputable journalism is ridiculous. See, for example, the list of controversies associated with the output of Pulitzer prize winner Thomas Friedman.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- cguess 10y ago
  I put it in another comment on this subthread, but Friedman is an opinion writer, on the opinion page, not the news page. He's supposed to make controversial statements.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  That should be required reading in high school.
dingo_bat 10y ago
So in your assessment "fake" just means non-mainstream. Haven't seen the word defined like this before.
- jjawssd 10y ago
  I can't believe that we have reached this point
- cphoover 10y ago
  No I think he means... Articles that are not sourced (citations, reports, interviews, journals).... etc have a higher likelihood of being false, than those that do. Mainstream news orgs tend to be better about including citations, and sources. They are also better about publishing retractions, when they are caught saying something factually wrong.
- cphoover 10y ago
  No I think he means... Articles that are not sourced (citations, reports, interviews, journals).... etc have a higher likelihood of being false, than those that do. Mainstream news orgs tend to be better about including citations, and sources. They are also better about publishing retractions, when they are caught saying something factually wrong.
ng12 10y ago
It's not clear to me which is more of a problem. With obviously fake news you can at least use well-researched facts to argue against it. When CNN keeps pushing the narrative (i.e. relentlessly talking about Hillary "winning" the debates when in hindsight she obviously didn't) it's a much more subversive, subtle kind of fake.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  CNN winning is merely them echoing the majority sentiment of the polls, maybe with a dash of hope thrown in. Ironically this may have done Clinton in with people thinking well, if she's won already then I don't need to go and vote. Hindsight is always 20/20, it is very easy to see Clinton winning as a 'narrative' pushed with an agenda whereas based on the data available to them that simply made good sense. See also: Trump expecting fully to lose (in his own words at some point).
  - jakeogh 10y ago
    A dash? From CNN all the way to FOX it was 23x7 schilling for the global government faction. Usually it's not so difficult because both candidates are in it. Trump ruined that technique and two parasitic political dynasties with it. Polls of AZ with a ~+15% Dem sample (when R turnout and D crossover was already off the charts) were used to run stories about how Clinton could win AZ... and TX! Attributing it to incompetence ignores the other obvious and well tested reason. http://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg http://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg
lend000 10y ago
Using "reputation" alone is a dangerous and naive standard -- the most powerful form of "fake news" is the selection/omission of stories and crafting of narratives around those stories, which is just as prevalent on "real news" sources like WaPo/CBS/CNN/NYT as it is on Fox/Breitbart and even 'fringe' sources. With the issue of opinions derived from factual events, which fit the bill of being 'misleading' (to some groups, at least) -- how do you draw the line? The NYT is certainly not exempt from that (see: half of Paul Krugman's articles). The only thing you can possibly check for with any reliability is the validity of the base, source event, if there is one. Any higher derivation in the wrong hands (Facebook, for example) is systemic censorship. How can we safely do that? Recursive link tracking, perhaps, to a "primary source," which relies on the AI matching the factual claim to an appropriate source, either a video, image, or text that can be considered the legitimate source based on context (for example, an article about Apple's earnings could link to a primary source of their press release).
- cguess 10y ago
  Just to nitpick: Krugman is on the opinion page, this is what he is supposed to be doing. David Brooks does the same thing, but usually on the conservative side of the arguments.
  - lend000 10y ago
    Yep very fair, but it would have to be assumed the AI could differentiate, which is not necessarily trivial. All of this would be much easier if there was some "standard" for writing news, sectioning off opinions that derive 'non-obvious' conclusions, linking primary sources, etc. But there isn't, and you would have to censor those who did not conform if there was one, which is not a good solution.

RodericDay 10y ago

Man some of you guys seriously need to read Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky. I'm as anti-Trump as it gets, but the idea that NYT or WSJ are bastions of reputable journalism is ridiculous. See, for example, the list of controversies associated with the output of Pulitzer prize winner Thomas Friedman.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
cguess 10y ago
I put it in another comment on this subthread, but Friedman is an opinion writer, on the opinion page, not the news page. He's supposed to make controversial statements.
jacquesm 10y ago
That should be required reading in high school.

dingo_bat 10y ago

So in your assessment "fake" just means non-mainstream. Haven't seen the word defined like this before.

jjawssd 10y ago
I can't believe that we have reached this point
cphoover 10y ago
No I think he means... Articles that are not sourced (citations, reports, interviews, journals).... etc have a higher likelihood of being false, than those that do. Mainstream news orgs tend to be better about including citations, and sources. They are also better about publishing retractions, when they are caught saying something factually wrong.
cphoover 10y ago
No I think he means... Articles that are not sourced (citations, reports, interviews, journals).... etc have a higher likelihood of being false, than those that do. Mainstream news orgs tend to be better about including citations, and sources. They are also better about publishing retractions, when they are caught saying something factually wrong.

ng12 10y ago

It's not clear to me which is more of a problem. With obviously fake news you can at least use well-researched facts to argue against it. When CNN keeps pushing the narrative (i.e. relentlessly talking about Hillary "winning" the debates when in hindsight she obviously didn't) it's a much more subversive, subtle kind of fake.

jacquesm 10y ago
CNN winning is merely them echoing the majority sentiment of the polls, maybe with a dash of hope thrown in. Ironically this may have done Clinton in with people thinking well, if she's won already then I don't need to go and vote. Hindsight is always 20/20, it is very easy to see Clinton winning as a 'narrative' pushed with an agenda whereas based on the data available to them that simply made good sense. See also: Trump expecting fully to lose (in his own words at some point).
- jakeogh 10y ago
  A dash? From CNN all the way to FOX it was 23x7 schilling for the global government faction. Usually it's not so difficult because both candidates are in it. Trump ruined that technique and two parasitic political dynasties with it. Polls of AZ with a ~+15% Dem sample (when R turnout and D crossover was already off the charts) were used to run stories about how Clinton could win AZ... and TX! Attributing it to incompetence ignores the other obvious and well tested reason. http://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg http://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg

lend000 10y ago

Using "reputation" alone is a dangerous and naive standard -- the most powerful form of "fake news" is the selection/omission of stories and crafting of narratives around those stories, which is just as prevalent on "real news" sources like WaPo/CBS/CNN/NYT as it is on Fox/Breitbart and even 'fringe' sources. With the issue of opinions derived from factual events, which fit the bill of being 'misleading' (to some groups, at least) -- how do you draw the line? The NYT is certainly not exempt from that (see: half of Paul Krugman's articles). The only thing you can possibly check for with any reliability is the validity of the base, source event, if there is one. Any higher derivation in the wrong hands (Facebook, for example) is systemic censorship. How can we safely do that? Recursive link tracking, perhaps, to a "primary source," which relies on the AI matching the factual claim to an appropriate source, either a video, image, or text that can be considered the legitimate source based on context (for example, an article about Apple's earnings could link to a primary source of their press release).

cguess 10y ago
Just to nitpick: Krugman is on the opinion page, this is what he is supposed to be doing. David Brooks does the same thing, but usually on the conservative side of the arguments.
- lend000 10y ago
  Yep very fair, but it would have to be assumed the AI could differentiate, which is not necessarily trivial. All of this would be much easier if there was some "standard" for writing news, sectioning off opinions that derive 'non-obvious' conclusions, linking primary sources, etc. But there isn't, and you would have to censor those who did not conform if there was one, which is not a good solution.