7 ms·

> The problem is not "fake news". The problem is people are treating the news like a product in the capitalist paradigm. I would say a huge part of the problem

> The problem is not "fake news". The problem is people are treating the news like a product in the capitalist paradigm. I would say a huge part of the problem is that news is no longer news. It's all commentary. News organizations are not only incentivized to to sensationalize stories to make money but they are also ran by people who have extreme political views and want to essentially mind control the population. They don't want to report the facts of a story. They want to make you accept their interpretation of the facts. A great example is how different news organizations cover the recent executive order on immigration. Depending on where you get your news you were told there was a Muslim ban, a ban from 7 Muslim majority countries, only accepting Christian refugees from the Middle East, 7 countries that harbor terrorists were banned, etc. Wherever you fall on that issue there is a news org trying to force you into a certain viewpoint one way or the other.

MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
> They want to make you accept their interpretation of the facts. Please, describe to me how someone can convey pure unadulterated facts in language, without imposing an "interpretation" on them. It's an absurd fantasy. There's no possibility for a disembodied, perfectly objective voice conveying facts. So yes, in a sense, every news org favors a certain interpretation of the facts. But these subtle variations used to be accepted as par for the course. The root cause of the widespread distrust of media is the turn on the right towards a form of Orwellian doublespeak in their media outlets, beginning in the 90s and ramping up heavily in the Bush years. You see it's most virulent expression in the way Trump speaks: he accuses the interim AG of "betrayal" for acting on her conscious. Or the way he talks about returning government "to the people" while staffing his cabinet with billionaires. It badly subverts the ability of people on the left and the right to meaningfully speak to one another, because our words no longer signify the same thing.
- woah 10y ago
  I'm personally opposed to almost everything Trump is trying to do, but don't act like it's only a problem on the right. Wasn't it just a couple of weeks ago that the left wing newspapers were reporting wild unsubstantiated rumors of a full-on Moscow piss orgy?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Wasn't it just a couple of weeks ago that the left wing newspapers were reporting wild unsubstantiated rumors of a full-on Moscow piss orgy? You mean the ones contained in a dossier which accurately predicted several Trump related events that were not publicly known to be in planning at the time it was written, but were verifiable to have occurred as predicted before it was published? Seems to me that it was plenty newsworthy. BTW, it also reported that part of the carrot side of the carrot-and-stick blackmail and bribery by Russia was that Trump was promised a bribe of a share of Rosneft coincidentally the same size that was just sold off, on credit, to buyers concealed by various cutouts.
    - imron 10y ago
      If I was Putin and I was trying to interfere in US politics, then after seeing that dossier I would have done this anyway just to mess with people, setting up a bunch of shell companies and essentially selling a 19% share of the company to itself. Gonna need more hard evidence before being concerned about this.
      - intended 10y ago
        This fails ~~occasion~~ occam's razor. By that logic, Putin could also dress up as an orange ballerina while announcing a 15% sale of the company, just to screw with people.
        imron 10y ago
        > This fails occasion razor Occam's razor, but I'm guessing that was autocorrect. Anyway, no, because there is no incentive for him to do what you are suggesting. If however you believe his goal is to destabilise U.S. politics, then there is large incentive and zero downside for him to fake a sale of 19% of the company.
  - e40 10y ago
    Many, and I mean MANY, of the people relaying/pushing the story did it with the caveat 1) it's completely unsubstantiated and 2) this is EXACTLY what the right did to the Clintons for 2 decades. When did the people pushing the N Clinton conspiracies every say "this may or not be true..."??? So, your statement is disingenuous, at best.
- enknamel 10y ago
  I'm not arguing to remove all interpretation from the facts. That's impossible with our language. But what we are experiencing from the news every single day is a far cry from objective journalism. We are almost only getting the interpretation without many facts (or facts that are taken out of context or edited to fit a narrative).
- gonmf 10y ago
  Yes you can convey information much more objective than today. For example, on the more recent migration ban story: "The White House has announced today at 7h30, through speaker ..., a piece of legislation that, quote: ~first paragraph summary of the legislation~. You can read the full text here. On the opinion of Bla bla, this legislation is innefective etc etc. Disclaimer: Bla bla is not related to any of the mentioned organizations, though he declares he tends to agree with the opinion of former president Obama on most issues. You can read more about this commenter here."
  - notahacker 10y ago
    Leading with a verbatim reproduction of the text describing the purpose of a bill (almost invariably a statement carefully crafted to make a political point) and adding a disclaimer to any points made in opposition is anything but an objective approach to news reporting.
- Strilanc 10y ago
  > It's an absurd fantasy. There's no possibility for a disembodied, perfectly objective voice conveying facts. Fallacy of gray. Just because you can't ask for perfect doesn't mean you can't ask for better.
- nl 10y ago
  Please, describe to me how someone can convey pure unadulterated facts in language, without imposing an "interpretation" on them. I've addressed this elsewhere, but there is definitely cases where this can be done. No, Tom Cruise is not moving to Buffalo, Missouri[1]. No, there is no attempt by lawmakers to legislate the disposal of unused semen[2]. Etc, etc. Some of these are satire, but some are just complete deliberate fakes. This is a different class of problem to "OMG Hillary is a Nazi/OMG Trump bought Pizza" opinion spam. [1] http://www.snopes.com/celebrity-moving-small-towns/ http://www.snopes.com/celebrity-moving-small-towns/ [2] http://www.snopes.com/unused-semen-bill/ http://www.snopes.com/unused-semen-bill/
enraged_camel 10y ago
>>Depending on where you get your news you were told there was a Muslim ban... According to Rudy Giuliani, when Trump first announced it, he called it a Muslim ban, so... https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/30/headlines/trump_favors_christian_refugees_asks_advisers_for_muslim_ban https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/30/headlines/trump_favor...
- enknamel 10y ago
  I'm not arguing for or against the executive order. It's just a very recent and big example of news organizations shaping how the population thinks. Every news organization is spinning this to fit their narrative.
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    There is no spin as far as I can tell. I read New York Times, Washington Post, The Atlantic, Slate and Salon. They are simply reporting the facts, along with how the EO is affecting travelers.
    - d0mine 10y ago
      How do you think a propaganda looks like for people who believe in it?
    - imron 10y ago
      > I read New York Times, Washington Post, The Atlantic, Slate and Salon So you admit you are only reading from sources with a similar bias/narrative on this issue?

MaxfordAndSons 10y ago

> They want to make you accept their interpretation of the facts. Please, describe to me how someone can convey pure unadulterated facts in language, without imposing an "interpretation" on them. It's an absurd fantasy. There's no possibility for a disembodied, perfectly objective voice conveying facts. So yes, in a sense, every news org favors a certain interpretation of the facts. But these subtle variations used to be accepted as par for the course. The root cause of the widespread distrust of media is the turn on the right towards a form of Orwellian doublespeak in their media outlets, beginning in the 90s and ramping up heavily in the Bush years. You see it's most virulent expression in the way Trump speaks: he accuses the interim AG of "betrayal" for acting on her conscious. Or the way he talks about returning government "to the people" while staffing his cabinet with billionaires. It badly subverts the ability of people on the left and the right to meaningfully speak to one another, because our words no longer signify the same thing.

woah 10y ago
I'm personally opposed to almost everything Trump is trying to do, but don't act like it's only a problem on the right. Wasn't it just a couple of weeks ago that the left wing newspapers were reporting wild unsubstantiated rumors of a full-on Moscow piss orgy?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Wasn't it just a couple of weeks ago that the left wing newspapers were reporting wild unsubstantiated rumors of a full-on Moscow piss orgy? You mean the ones contained in a dossier which accurately predicted several Trump related events that were not publicly known to be in planning at the time it was written, but were verifiable to have occurred as predicted before it was published? Seems to me that it was plenty newsworthy. BTW, it also reported that part of the carrot side of the carrot-and-stick blackmail and bribery by Russia was that Trump was promised a bribe of a share of Rosneft coincidentally the same size that was just sold off, on credit, to buyers concealed by various cutouts.
  - imron 10y ago
    If I was Putin and I was trying to interfere in US politics, then after seeing that dossier I would have done this anyway just to mess with people, setting up a bunch of shell companies and essentially selling a 19% share of the company to itself. Gonna need more hard evidence before being concerned about this.
    - intended 10y ago
      This fails ~~occasion~~ occam's razor. By that logic, Putin could also dress up as an orange ballerina while announcing a 15% sale of the company, just to screw with people.
      - imron 10y ago
        > This fails occasion razor Occam's razor, but I'm guessing that was autocorrect. Anyway, no, because there is no incentive for him to do what you are suggesting. If however you believe his goal is to destabilise U.S. politics, then there is large incentive and zero downside for him to fake a sale of 19% of the company.
- e40 10y ago
  Many, and I mean MANY, of the people relaying/pushing the story did it with the caveat 1) it's completely unsubstantiated and 2) this is EXACTLY what the right did to the Clintons for 2 decades. When did the people pushing the N Clinton conspiracies every say "this may or not be true..."??? So, your statement is disingenuous, at best.
enknamel 10y ago
I'm not arguing to remove all interpretation from the facts. That's impossible with our language. But what we are experiencing from the news every single day is a far cry from objective journalism. We are almost only getting the interpretation without many facts (or facts that are taken out of context or edited to fit a narrative).
gonmf 10y ago
Yes you can convey information much more objective than today. For example, on the more recent migration ban story: "The White House has announced today at 7h30, through speaker ..., a piece of legislation that, quote: ~first paragraph summary of the legislation~. You can read the full text here. On the opinion of Bla bla, this legislation is innefective etc etc. Disclaimer: Bla bla is not related to any of the mentioned organizations, though he declares he tends to agree with the opinion of former president Obama on most issues. You can read more about this commenter here."
- notahacker 10y ago
  Leading with a verbatim reproduction of the text describing the purpose of a bill (almost invariably a statement carefully crafted to make a political point) and adding a disclaimer to any points made in opposition is anything but an objective approach to news reporting.
Strilanc 10y ago
> It's an absurd fantasy. There's no possibility for a disembodied, perfectly objective voice conveying facts. Fallacy of gray. Just because you can't ask for perfect doesn't mean you can't ask for better.
nl 10y ago
Please, describe to me how someone can convey pure unadulterated facts in language, without imposing an "interpretation" on them. I've addressed this elsewhere, but there is definitely cases where this can be done. No, Tom Cruise is not moving to Buffalo, Missouri[1]. No, there is no attempt by lawmakers to legislate the disposal of unused semen[2]. Etc, etc. Some of these are satire, but some are just complete deliberate fakes. This is a different class of problem to "OMG Hillary is a Nazi/OMG Trump bought Pizza" opinion spam. [1] http://www.snopes.com/celebrity-moving-small-towns/ http://www.snopes.com/celebrity-moving-small-towns/ [2] http://www.snopes.com/unused-semen-bill/ http://www.snopes.com/unused-semen-bill/

enraged_camel 10y ago

>>Depending on where you get your news you were told there was a Muslim ban... According to Rudy Giuliani, when Trump first announced it, he called it a Muslim ban, so... https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/30/headlines/trump_favors_christian_refugees_asks_advisers_for_muslim_ban https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/30/headlines/trump_favor...

enknamel 10y ago
I'm not arguing for or against the executive order. It's just a very recent and big example of news organizations shaping how the population thinks. Every news organization is spinning this to fit their narrative.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  There is no spin as far as I can tell. I read New York Times, Washington Post, The Atlantic, Slate and Salon. They are simply reporting the facts, along with how the EO is affecting travelers.
  - d0mine 10y ago
    How do you think a propaganda looks like for people who believe in it?
  - imron 10y ago
    > I read New York Times, Washington Post, The Atlantic, Slate and Salon So you admit you are only reading from sources with a similar bias/narrative on this issue?