11 ms·

Nearly all fact-checking organizations are considered to be biased and untrustworthy by a sizable percentage of the population. I'm skeptical that this will act

• merpnderp 10y ago
  But has the news gone a day without telling a verifiable lie? I read an article yesterday running down the list of organizations (quoted and linked) mocking Trump for referring to a terrorist attack the night before in Sweden. The full transcript shows Trump never mentioned a terrorist attack. It's not that Trump is so trustworthy it's just that one person can't possibly lie as much as thousands.
  • theWatcher37 10y ago
    We live in a world where obama can get the number of US states wrong and get a pass, and trump mentioning a segment he saw last night on FOX is the end of the world. Interestingly enough the media parroted the "debunked" claim when the article was using statistics from Sweden's own government. Rape is up 70% since 2005. Grenade attacks are also a thing in Sweden now, which is absolutely unacceptable.
    • erelde 10y ago
      And you are not believing stats released by one of the least corrupt democracy of the West. There was one grenade launched in Sweden in August last year. There's at least 1 killed by a semi auto in the US per day. Sweden has near zero homicide rate. edit: it seems there was more than 'one' explosions in Sweden, but looking at the wikipedia article history linked below doesn't fill me with confidence considering how the language used has changed between august when the article was made and now. Also note how the wikipedia editors write about organized crime using old grenades from WWII and not migrants bombing Swedish people.
      • mizzack 10y ago
        One? Huh? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grenade_attacks_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grenade_attacks_in_Swe...
        • knowaveragejoe 10y ago
          Wow, they're almost up to a few days worth of gun crime in the US there.
          • rfrank 10y ago
            Wow, that dramatic increase in frequency just magically happened huh?
            • knowaveragejoe 10y ago
              Sounds like all your prejudices are confirmed.
              • rfrank 10y ago
                That's certainly one way to interpret it. Not a very good one, but do you.
    • scholia 10y ago
      Unlike Obama, Trump is a pathological liar. He peaked at 40 lies in a single day, his diatribe against mainstream media included 17 lies, and he's managed at least 80 lies as so called president. As a matter of fact, Trump built his political career on lying about Obama's place of birth. See: https://www.thestar.com/news/donald-trump-fact-check.html https://www.thestar.com/news/donald-trump-fact-check.html https://www.thestar.com/news/world/uselection/2016/11/04/donald-trump-the-unauthorized-database-of-false-things.html https://www.thestar.com/news/world/uselection/2016/11/04/don... http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-false-statements-20160925-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-false-statem... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all... http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/politics/donald-trump-obama-birther.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/politics/donald-trump-o... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/06/donald-trumps-ridiculous-claim-that-hillary-clinton-started-the-birther-movement/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/... Trump Lies about His Birther Past: A Closer Look https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sBhANSz--k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sBhANSz--k "Trump built his career on a racist lie because he's a racist and a liar" -- Seth Meyers
      • scholia 10y ago
        New item from the Washington Post's fact checkers: In the 33 days so far, we’ve counted 132 false or misleading claims https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claim...
    • eh78ssxv2f 10y ago
      About Obama getting the states wrong, did you mean this: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp?
    • gizmo385 10y ago
      Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the increase in rape statistics in Sweden largely attributable to broadening of the government's definition of what it considers rape?
      • croon 10y ago
        Yes, legal reform in 2005 and 2013 can be clearly linked to those spikes.
    • unprepare 10y ago
      how does Trump react when hes called out on a lie, and how does Obama react when hes called out? > I understand I said there were 57 states today. It’s a sign that my numeracy is getting a little, uh …” >“I don’t know,” Trump repeated. “I was given that information.”
  • jeromegv 10y ago
    He mentioned all cities and countries where terrorist attacks occurred. Then mentioned something happened in Sweden as well specifically the night before. It's not because he didn't put the word "terrorist attack" in the same sentence that he didn't mean that, it's clear from the transcript that it was exactly what he meant. ---- "Here's the bottom line, we've got to keep our country safe," Trump said. "You look at what's happening. We've got to keep our country safe. You look at what's happening in Germany. You look at what's happening last night in Sweden. Sweden! Who would believe this? Sweden! They took in large numbers, they're having problems like they never thought possible." He continued, " You look at what’s happening in Brussels. You look at what’s happening all over the world. Take a look at Nice. Take a look at Paris. We’ve allowed thousands and thousands of people into our country and there was no way to vet those people. There was no documentation. There was no nothing. So we’re going to keep our country safe." ----
    • kbart 10y ago
      Yet it happened the day after his speech[0]. A fertile ground for various conspiracies. 0. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/21/riots-erupt-in-swedens-capital-just-days-after-trump-comments/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/21...
      • deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      • candiodari 10y ago
        I don't know why this is considered conspiracy. This event is a bit like the car burning "protests" in France. Most days where it "doesn't" happen according to the press should be understood as it happening less, not so much not. People are demonstrating and torching cars pretty much every Friday, in Paris, in Nice, in Lille, in ..., and more so every once and a while for a decade now. Most recent New Year's eve: http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/749511/French-government-Sarkozy-hide-statistics-New-Year-s-Eve-arson-attack-increase-Le-Pen http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/749511/French-government... There are constant serious incidents in Stockholm and Malmo, every Friday. There are constant serious incidents (like 10-20 cars torched minimum) in every major French city every Friday, including even Brussels on occasion, for over a decade now. There are serious incidents in Rotterdam and the poor parts of Amsterdam. I'm not sure why this is not being reported, although in the French case it is pretty clear the government is suppressing reporting. But of course, after a decade of this few people are unaware. The problem is, everybody knows, and the suppression is causing people to assume things are worse than they are (although they are far beyond what even a San Franciscan would tolerate). The issue is people can just leave their homes, drive 1km further than usual and see proof positive (torched cars being cleaned up, destroyed businesses) that the government is suppressing news. And no, it (mostly) isn't immigrants doing this, although it definitely is muslim inner city youth. The issue is simple: the governments are lying. Very, very transparently lying. For the fool's hope of turning an anti-immigrant wave back. Meanwhile, you can't actually say you feel like this in most settings. The issue with that is what happens at work. 90% or so of a consulting team working at some bank or whatever will be of the opinion that this needs to stop, and some percentage of them feels that electing Le Pen/Dewinter/Wilders/... will accomplish, maybe not a stop, but an improvement. And it absolutely can't be discussed, because that is sure to, at the very least, result in complaints to HR or management. Meanwhile 100m down the road, 15 floors down, things are slowly getting worse. Some days you can't get a sandwich without getting confronted with it. Will this get us Le Pen ? God I hope not.
  • erelde 10y ago
    Trump didn't directly claim there was a terrorist attack in Sweden "last night", but by saying in the same breath as "look at Paris, look at Nice" where there was three very well known attacks in 2 years, he is implicitely saying "there was an attack in Sweden last night", and he knows it perfectly well. And he knows that a portion of his listeners will not hear the debunking and others will believe him rather than hard tangible facts. And he very consciouly said it in this way because he knew all this. This is the Kuleshov effect of speeches.
• leereeves 10y ago
  He's been in office 31 days. What are the 31 lies?
  • philk10 10y ago
    More like 80 - https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/02/03/daniel-dales-donald-trump-fact-check-updates.html https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/02/03/daniel-dales-d...
  • croon 10y ago
    Only Trump statements, not including his staff [1]: Of 26 checked statements, 20 were mostly false or worse. [1] http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/ http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/stateme...
    • leereeves 10y ago
      I did a little fact checking of Politifact: Discussing his speech in Florida, they claim he referred to a terrorist attack in Sweden. He never mentioned a terrorist attack. They said Trump's approval rating is 41% [1], cherry picking one of the lowest polls. Lower, in fact, than any recent poll listed on RCP [2]. 1: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/feb/18/fact-checking-president-donald-trumps-florida-rall/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/feb/18/... 2: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trum... ("Recent" not including one poll from 19 days ago, 17 days before the Politifact article, that reported 40% approval.)
      • PJDK 10y ago
        Do they say he said that? All the articles I read talked about confusion about what he said and mentioned the former Prime Minister of Sweden's inference he was talking about a terrorist attack. e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/world/europe/last-night-in-sweden-trumps-remark-baffles-a-nation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/world/europe/last-night-i...
• empath75 10y ago
  There are about 30% of the population that are totally ignorant not just about facts but about how to even ascertain what the truth is. I'm not sure we should throw up our hands and give up because a sizable percentage of people are hopeless. There are a lot of people who can be helped by that kind of thing.
  • ssharp 10y ago
    We absolutely should not throw up our hands. To some extent, I appreciate that Google and Facebook are at least aware of the issue and want to act on it. My skepticism is that as a result of these efforts, Google and Facebook will be considered to be biased, inaccurate, and no longer trustworthy. There is already a lot of animosity towards Silicon Valley companies as it is. I certainly hope that if there is 70% of the population this can still help, that it accomplishes that goal without making the other 30% even worse.
    • theWatcher37 10y ago
      Google of all companies has no moral authority to be "filtering" anything based on "facts", given that they were shown to manipulate search auto-completes with political bias.
      • croon 10y ago
        If you're referring to the Soros thing you've both: * Drunk the Kool-Aid * Ignored doing the most rudimentary test of replacing his name with any other and matching results.
      • ecopoesis 10y ago
        Not true. http://www.snopes.com/google-manipulate-hillary-clinton/ http://www.snopes.com/google-manipulate-hillary-clinton/ Maybe Hacker News needs fact checking integration also.
        • deleted 10y ago
          [deleted]
• cmdrfred 10y ago
  I think this is more about the low standards in journalism as opposed to high standards of honesty in the Trump adminstration. A recent example: Salon just ran an article on Milo Yiannopoulos. He was sexually abused as a child and made claims a year ago that recently came to light that it was mostly his fault and he seduced the transgressor, somewhat excusing the behavior. At that very same moment they removed articles that seemed to support pedophilia that they had published previously. https://mobile.twitter.com/stillgray/status/833835031328124928 https://mobile.twitter.com/stillgray/status/8338350313281249...
• grey-area 10y ago
  Yes, the problem is not a technical one, and the term 'fake news' is in itself gaslighting and part of the problem - as soon as you accept this term, you accept people just shouting fake news to shut down conversation (as Trump does frequently to shut down lines of questioning he doesn't like, notably in his press conference before he'd even heard the question). We should reject the premise of any argument that depends on some news being fake and some being real, and somehow if everyone just knew the one truth it'd be ok. People start from different places (education, background, prejudices), so they interpret even the same set of facts differently. We don't have too much fake news, we have too little critical thinking.
  • theWatcher37 10y ago
    The majority of TV media routinely engages in "just honest enough so you can't sue me" reporting. They consistently misrepresent the facts and spin things to their agendas. Now your university educated will call it filtering/magnifying/selective truth/implementation of propoganda models (see: Chomsky) Your average person just says "they lie!" And "fake news". When dealing with organizations as fundamentally dishonest as the corporate media this is the most you can expect from Joe public.
    • grey-area 10y ago
      QED
    • nradov 10y ago
      I am not convinced that the TV media is intentionally dishonest (other than obvious propaganda machines like RT). In the stories I have seen where I knew what actually happened, the errors and omissions in the media could be adequately explained by ignorance, laziness, and lack of resources. TV "news" is primarily an entertainment business and in most cases there's simply no incentive to present complete and accurate stories. If viewers will watch anyway then why waste time doing extra work?
      • tastythrowaway 10y ago
• theWatcher37 10y ago
  Sounds like a serious condemnation of the media. My theory is that public opinion takes a long time to shift on these issues, and the media has been a fundamentally dishonest and deceptive industry for so long it's hard to outdo them in such a short time.
  • scholia 10y ago
    Sounds like you're a source of fake news, or a victim of conservative media lies. The media nowadays covers a very wide spectrum from honest mainstream media (NYT, WP, BBC etc) to partizan sources that include a high proportion of lies (Fox News) to the totally dishonest and unreliable (Breitbart, Infowars etc). Mainstream media reporting based on trained journalists and subeditors, fact checkers and ombudsmen (who publish corrections) is not "fundamentally dishonest and deceptive", despite the efforts of liars like Trump to undermine it. The American tragedy is that a large proportion of the electorate has been corrupted by alt-right media lies to the point where people deny things that are provably, factually true. For an informed account of the problem, see: http://uk.businessinsider.com/conservative-media-trump-drudge-coulter-2016-8?op=1?r=US&IR=T http://uk.businessinsider.com/conservative-media-trump-drudg...
• zackbloom 10y ago
  To be fair, trump does tell _his_ truth. His statements are generally wrong not for any conniving purpose, but because he genuinely has no idea what is going on.
  • AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    I'm not sure I find that comforting...
• untog 10y ago
  As with anything, that poll is deeply party political: "The results were vastly skewed along partisan lines, with 81 percent of Republicans trusting the administration over the media and 79 percent of Democrats deferring to news organizations over the White House." http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-media-trust-poll-fox-news-235168 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-media-trust-poll... IMO the poll doesn't reflect anything other than people's willingness to believe, against any and all evidence, that their "side" is correct. It feels like a very specific effect of the internet - with five seconds of googling you can find an opinion that reinforces yours, rather than confront the fact that you might be wrong.
• arjunhassard 10y ago
  "This sort of fact-checking data journalism mythology, which is really just political ideology masquerading as data-driven reporting" [1] The speed with which the likes of Mr. Yannipoulous are pre-empting the rise of mainstream fact-checking/referencing is startling. It shows that who stand to lose from more effective veracity-detection tools will attempt to outpace the development of said solutions by rapidly deploying undermining rhetoric. [1] https://youtu.be/PTxSAjXpnqo?t=1m40s https://youtu.be/PTxSAjXpnqo?t=1m40s