8 ms·

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

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
    What makes RT propaganda? The fact that they are critical of the US in ways our own media isn't?
    - DanBC 10y ago
      No, the fact that they're state owned media and used by the Russian government to put out propaganda makes RT propaganda. https://euvsdisinfo.eu/ https://euvsdisinfo.eu/ EG: https://euvsdisinfo.eu/useful-experts-in-russian-media/ https://euvsdisinfo.eu/useful-experts-in-russian-media/
      - tastythrowaway 10y ago
        While the article mentions RT as an example of state-owned media, none of the cited incidents actually involve it. Also this website self-identifies as anti-Russian "disinformation." RT, ironically, has a similar mission against mainstream Western and EU media. So every one of these outlets has bias (even though not all of them are honest enough to claim it). So who should we believe?
        unprepare 10y ago
        ahh a classic А у вас негров линчуют https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
        tastythrowaway 10y ago
        Ironically, your implication of tu quoque is itself a logical fallacy. I am not saying "RT is unbiased because Western media _is_ biased" - in fact I am saying all media is biased but of the parties mentioned only one consistently draws ire for its bias.
        10y ago
crdoconnor 10y ago
"Fake news" (along with Russia-panic) started its life as part of a propaganda offensive by the DNC and DNC affiliated media (CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, etc.) to justify why Hillary lost that didn't involve blaming her. I think it was mainly targeted at Democrats/Hillary supporters rather than Trump supporters (they obviously didn't need to hear an excuse for why she lost).
- MK999 10y ago
  Also the term 'filter-bubble' which acts as if conservatives are simply not exposed to liberal viewpoints.
- scholia 10y ago
  Fake news started with the Tea Party, "shock jocks" and other right-wing conservative attempts to discredit reality-based news media. Blaming the DNC is a good example of fake news lies in action.
  - crdoconnor 10y ago
    Fake news started hundreds if not thousands of years ago. The recent hysteria about fake news started roughly 48 hours after the Presidential election results.
    - croon 10y ago
      Fake news was abundant enough that it became a meme in 2005 as "truthiness". That you took offense to it only after November 10, 2016 is inconsequential.
      - crdoconnor 10y ago
        The media's sudden obsession starting Nov 10th is graphed here: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=fake%20news https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=fake%20news Spikes like that don't happen by accident.
narrator 10y ago
"Fake News" was a term created to explain why Hillary didn't win the election. If she had won, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Ironically, Trump has successfully comandeered the term to criticize his enemies in the media. The problem is that the mainstream has lost its influence to a lot of smaller players and they are doing whatever they can to get it back. Facebook and Google are having political problems because they are viewed as part of the cause of the mainstream media's lack of influence and they are trying to comply with pressure from somewhere. I don't think fake news really hurts their bottom line. In fact, Facebook and Google being viewed as politically biased might be a reason for people to switch to other search engines, especially since nearly 50% of the U.S did vote for Trump after all.
- candiodari 10y ago
  > Ironically, Trump has successfully comandeered the term to criticize his enemies in the media. Ironically ? This was more predictable than the coyote's fate in cartoons. Apparently the reaction to getting an undesirable leader in the white house is to prepare a massive shotgun, give it to the government (that said leader will be controlling), and make sure everyone is threatened by it. It seems that because "of course" Hillary's defeat was nobody's fault, not hers [1], not the party [2], and not her supporters [3], and it wasn't Trump's efforts either, so it must have been nefarious actions from evil outsiders. This disaster started rolling to make sure this was the narrative surrounding Hillary's defeat. Obviously, I feel like the the fault is not in our stars, not even the Russian ones. This will get a lot worse before it gets better. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZHp4JLWjNw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZHp4JLWjNw or http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/john-podesta-wikileaks-hacked-emails-229304 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/john-podesta-wikileaks... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Commi... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVKC0egDBpk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVKC0egDBpk (I am not saying the above links illustrate the reason we ended up with Trump. Each of them by themselves probably did not make enough difference to turn the tide. But they are fuckups. They did not help. Enough fuckups and you loose. And yes, I think Hillary lost the election much more than that Trump won it. Hillary defeated herself and Trump moved into the vacuum that remained without fucking up sufficiently himself. But making his election the actions of evil Putin ... stuff like that has the potential to give Trump 8 years. Frankly, even if it's true (because of course Russia ... and the US ... interfere in eachother's elections).
chimeracoder 10y ago
> the term 'fake news' is in itself gaslighting and part of the problem The term "fake news" is not gaslighting. It was coined to describe news that was, quite literally, intentionally made up with the intent to deceive and manipulate the reader using objectively false facts. For example, the fake electoral map that showed that Clinton only won the popular vote along the coasts, and that everywhere else (including Chicago!) voted uniformly for Trump. The term has since been appropriated (one might argue intentionally, by progenitors of said fake news) to describe any news that has a perceived bias or slant differing from the one held by the person speaking, but that's not "fake news" - that's just... well, news. > We don't have too much fake news, we have too little critical thinking I agree with this. To a large degree, if people collectively possessed better critical thinking skills and demonstrated the interest in using them, actual fake news would be a non-issue. As I said, true "fake news" is trivially verifiable as false (e.g. Trump winning Chicago), but it's spread by people who either don't have the skills to think that deeply, don't want to think deeply, or simply don't mind blatantly lying in order to push their agenda.
- grey-area 10y ago
  True fake news is not produced by Democrats? Hmm. I think better to reject this style of argument altogether, whoever uses it, the term has been poisoned irredeemably by its misuse and evacuated successfully of meaning, if it ever had any. I suspect this was a deliberate strategy by Trump's campaign, but it also shows up the vacuous nature of the original term that it can be so successfully co-opted. When you accept an argument on the basis of vague concepts like fake news, terrorists and protecting the homeland and you've already lost in a fundamental sense by failing to look at the foundation and assumptions going into the arguments over what is true and not. We should look at the basis of the argument and facts presented - the content, and just ignore the rhetorical packaging like 'very fake news', it's not helpful to argue over whether things are fake or not or what exactly fake news is, because definitions like that are so easily twisted. You might find that you oppose fake news only to find it has been redefined successfully to mean everything Trump disagrees with.
  - chimeracoder 10y ago

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
  What makes RT propaganda? The fact that they are critical of the US in ways our own media isn't?
  - DanBC 10y ago
    No, the fact that they're state owned media and used by the Russian government to put out propaganda makes RT propaganda. https://euvsdisinfo.eu/ https://euvsdisinfo.eu/ EG: https://euvsdisinfo.eu/useful-experts-in-russian-media/ https://euvsdisinfo.eu/useful-experts-in-russian-media/
    - tastythrowaway 10y ago
      While the article mentions RT as an example of state-owned media, none of the cited incidents actually involve it. Also this website self-identifies as anti-Russian "disinformation." RT, ironically, has a similar mission against mainstream Western and EU media. So every one of these outlets has bias (even though not all of them are honest enough to claim it). So who should we believe?
      - unprepare 10y ago
        ahh a classic А у вас негров линчуют https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
        tastythrowaway 10y ago
        Ironically, your implication of tu quoque is itself a logical fallacy. I am not saying "RT is unbiased because Western media _is_ biased" - in fact I am saying all media is biased but of the parties mentioned only one consistently draws ire for its bias.
        10y ago

crdoconnor 10y ago

"Fake news" (along with Russia-panic) started its life as part of a propaganda offensive by the DNC and DNC affiliated media (CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, etc.) to justify why Hillary lost that didn't involve blaming her. I think it was mainly targeted at Democrats/Hillary supporters rather than Trump supporters (they obviously didn't need to hear an excuse for why she lost).

MK999 10y ago
Also the term 'filter-bubble' which acts as if conservatives are simply not exposed to liberal viewpoints.
scholia 10y ago
Fake news started with the Tea Party, "shock jocks" and other right-wing conservative attempts to discredit reality-based news media. Blaming the DNC is a good example of fake news lies in action.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  Fake news started hundreds if not thousands of years ago. The recent hysteria about fake news started roughly 48 hours after the Presidential election results.
  - croon 10y ago
    Fake news was abundant enough that it became a meme in 2005 as "truthiness". That you took offense to it only after November 10, 2016 is inconsequential.
    - crdoconnor 10y ago
      The media's sudden obsession starting Nov 10th is graphed here: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=fake%20news https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=fake%20news Spikes like that don't happen by accident.

narrator 10y ago

"Fake News" was a term created to explain why Hillary didn't win the election. If she had won, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Ironically, Trump has successfully comandeered the term to criticize his enemies in the media. The problem is that the mainstream has lost its influence to a lot of smaller players and they are doing whatever they can to get it back. Facebook and Google are having political problems because they are viewed as part of the cause of the mainstream media's lack of influence and they are trying to comply with pressure from somewhere. I don't think fake news really hurts their bottom line. In fact, Facebook and Google being viewed as politically biased might be a reason for people to switch to other search engines, especially since nearly 50% of the U.S did vote for Trump after all.

candiodari 10y ago
> Ironically, Trump has successfully comandeered the term to criticize his enemies in the media. Ironically ? This was more predictable than the coyote's fate in cartoons. Apparently the reaction to getting an undesirable leader in the white house is to prepare a massive shotgun, give it to the government (that said leader will be controlling), and make sure everyone is threatened by it. It seems that because "of course" Hillary's defeat was nobody's fault, not hers [1], not the party [2], and not her supporters [3], and it wasn't Trump's efforts either, so it must have been nefarious actions from evil outsiders. This disaster started rolling to make sure this was the narrative surrounding Hillary's defeat. Obviously, I feel like the the fault is not in our stars, not even the Russian ones. This will get a lot worse before it gets better. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZHp4JLWjNw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZHp4JLWjNw or http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/john-podesta-wikileaks-hacked-emails-229304 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/john-podesta-wikileaks... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Commi... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVKC0egDBpk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVKC0egDBpk (I am not saying the above links illustrate the reason we ended up with Trump. Each of them by themselves probably did not make enough difference to turn the tide. But they are fuckups. They did not help. Enough fuckups and you loose. And yes, I think Hillary lost the election much more than that Trump won it. Hillary defeated herself and Trump moved into the vacuum that remained without fucking up sufficiently himself. But making his election the actions of evil Putin ... stuff like that has the potential to give Trump 8 years. Frankly, even if it's true (because of course Russia ... and the US ... interfere in eachother's elections).

chimeracoder 10y ago

> the term 'fake news' is in itself gaslighting and part of the problem The term "fake news" is not gaslighting. It was coined to describe news that was, quite literally, intentionally made up with the intent to deceive and manipulate the reader using objectively false facts. For example, the fake electoral map that showed that Clinton only won the popular vote along the coasts, and that everywhere else (including Chicago!) voted uniformly for Trump. The term has since been appropriated (one might argue intentionally, by progenitors of said fake news) to describe any news that has a perceived bias or slant differing from the one held by the person speaking, but that's not "fake news" - that's just... well, news. > We don't have too much fake news, we have too little critical thinking I agree with this. To a large degree, if people collectively possessed better critical thinking skills and demonstrated the interest in using them, actual fake news would be a non-issue. As I said, true "fake news" is trivially verifiable as false (e.g. Trump winning Chicago), but it's spread by people who either don't have the skills to think that deeply, don't want to think deeply, or simply don't mind blatantly lying in order to push their agenda.

grey-area 10y ago
True fake news is not produced by Democrats? Hmm. I think better to reject this style of argument altogether, whoever uses it, the term has been poisoned irredeemably by its misuse and evacuated successfully of meaning, if it ever had any. I suspect this was a deliberate strategy by Trump's campaign, but it also shows up the vacuous nature of the original term that it can be so successfully co-opted. When you accept an argument on the basis of vague concepts like fake news, terrorists and protecting the homeland and you've already lost in a fundamental sense by failing to look at the foundation and assumptions going into the arguments over what is true and not. We should look at the basis of the argument and facts presented - the content, and just ignore the rhetorical packaging like 'very fake news', it's not helpful to argue over whether things are fake or not or what exactly fake news is, because definitions like that are so easily twisted. You might find that you oppose fake news only to find it has been redefined successfully to mean everything Trump disagrees with.
- chimeracoder 10y ago