5 ms·

Yes, I think the appropriation was astoundingly effective. A few days ago I heard someone refer to actual fake news as fake news and I suddenly remembered CNN t

by rjeli 10y ago

Yes, I think the appropriation was astoundingly effective. A few days ago I heard someone refer to actual fake news as fake news and I suddenly remembered CNN talking about fake news right after the election before Trump started slinging it around. I had completely forgotten.

sanderjd 10y ago
I know this just reflects our bubbles, but the only time I see "fake news" used as a slur for real news is in tweets from the President. So it doesn't seem like very effective appropriation to me. It just seems thin and obvious.
- wjossey 10y ago
  While I'm quite left of center on most issues, I'm also a political hound. I listen to conservative talk radio a couple times a week for the purposes of oppo research and fake news is regularly tossed around in reference to NPR, BBC, NYTimes, etc. Rush Limbaugh has 14M+ listeners per week who hear those sources called "fake news", so I'd sadly agree that it has been very effectively appropriated.
  - sanderjd 10y ago
    Doesn't it depend on what "effective" means though? Did anyone who listens to Rush Limbaugh have respect for NPR beforehand? My point is - have any minds been changed by the appropriation? In any case, most actual Republicans I talk to are very different than radio personalities, and don't buy this stuff about mainstream news being "fake". Liberally biased, to be sure, but the whole "fake news" aspect of that bias is recognized as propaganda.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  You might be right about the bubbles. I don't use Twitter much. But was searching the term a while back and saw in Google auto-complete of "fake news " CNN poped up as the 4th line. And still does, I just checked. I found that fascinating for some reason. Here is a $1B+ in gross profit mass media business reduced to being the only explicitly named news company in the Google search suggestion box for "Fake News".
- cat199 10y ago
  > used as a slur for real news There is spin and editorial bias all around... read between the lines and investigate the editorial and philosophical slant and you will see this very quickly.
  - Spivak 10y ago
    It's well more than editorial bias in some cases, it's blatantly misleading. Whether it's due to laziness and needing something catchy to write about, incompetence because they really don't understand statistics, or malice trying to pander or push a narrative I can't say. Two recent examples. * https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2017/03/09/more-bad-reporting-on-texting-and-driving/ https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2017/03/09/more-bad-r... * https://twitter.com/StuartBuck1/status/847104688562548736 https://twitter.com/StuartBuck1/status/847104688562548736
thomasahle 10y ago
The original concept of fake news was actually quite interesting: People who knowingly writes completely false things ("The statue of liberty has fallen down" or "Water found on the sun") just to get people to click the ads. It's a much easier problem to solve than biased news.
- bigbugbag 10y ago
  Exactly my thought when reading the article. Of course Facebook and Google have the power to stop fake news, simply move away from the ads business model and suddenly there's no incentive to invest in fake news. Fake news is an offshoot of the web being an advertising space with a seemingly unending supply of brain hacked human bots.
  - Mendenhall 10y ago
    100 percent agree with this although I doubt many will see the reality of what you said. Facebook and google played a huge part in spreading clickbait and fake news titles and and now all of a sudden they are trying to "stop" it lofnl.
  - cat199 10y ago
    > simply move away from the ads business model and suddenly there's no incentive to invest in fake news Getting your desired message heard and accepted is still a pretty strong motivator - though yes, this does deincentivize the purely 'fake news for profit' camp.
  - Shish2k 10y ago
    > simply move away from the ads business model "simply"?
- Sunset 10y ago
  We had a better name for that, "clickbait".
  - thomasahle 10y ago

by rjeli 10y ago

sanderjd 10y ago

I know this just reflects our bubbles, but the only time I see "fake news" used as a slur for real news is in tweets from the President. So it doesn't seem like very effective appropriation to me. It just seems thin and obvious.

wjossey 10y ago
While I'm quite left of center on most issues, I'm also a political hound. I listen to conservative talk radio a couple times a week for the purposes of oppo research and fake news is regularly tossed around in reference to NPR, BBC, NYTimes, etc. Rush Limbaugh has 14M+ listeners per week who hear those sources called "fake news", so I'd sadly agree that it has been very effectively appropriated.
- sanderjd 10y ago
  Doesn't it depend on what "effective" means though? Did anyone who listens to Rush Limbaugh have respect for NPR beforehand? My point is - have any minds been changed by the appropriation? In any case, most actual Republicans I talk to are very different than radio personalities, and don't buy this stuff about mainstream news being "fake". Liberally biased, to be sure, but the whole "fake news" aspect of that bias is recognized as propaganda.
rdtsc 10y ago
You might be right about the bubbles. I don't use Twitter much. But was searching the term a while back and saw in Google auto-complete of "fake news " CNN poped up as the 4th line. And still does, I just checked. I found that fascinating for some reason. Here is a $1B+ in gross profit mass media business reduced to being the only explicitly named news company in the Google search suggestion box for "Fake News".
cat199 10y ago
> used as a slur for real news There is spin and editorial bias all around... read between the lines and investigate the editorial and philosophical slant and you will see this very quickly.
- Spivak 10y ago
  It's well more than editorial bias in some cases, it's blatantly misleading. Whether it's due to laziness and needing something catchy to write about, incompetence because they really don't understand statistics, or malice trying to pander or push a narrative I can't say. Two recent examples. * https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2017/03/09/more-bad-reporting-on-texting-and-driving/ https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2017/03/09/more-bad-r... * https://twitter.com/StuartBuck1/status/847104688562548736 https://twitter.com/StuartBuck1/status/847104688562548736

thomasahle 10y ago

The original concept of fake news was actually quite interesting: People who knowingly writes completely false things ("The statue of liberty has fallen down" or "Water found on the sun") just to get people to click the ads. It's a much easier problem to solve than biased news.

bigbugbag 10y ago
Exactly my thought when reading the article. Of course Facebook and Google have the power to stop fake news, simply move away from the ads business model and suddenly there's no incentive to invest in fake news. Fake news is an offshoot of the web being an advertising space with a seemingly unending supply of brain hacked human bots.
- Mendenhall 10y ago
  100 percent agree with this although I doubt many will see the reality of what you said. Facebook and google played a huge part in spreading clickbait and fake news titles and and now all of a sudden they are trying to "stop" it lofnl.
- cat199 10y ago
  > simply move away from the ads business model and suddenly there's no incentive to invest in fake news Getting your desired message heard and accepted is still a pretty strong motivator - though yes, this does deincentivize the purely 'fake news for profit' camp.
- Shish2k 10y ago
  > simply move away from the ads business model "simply"?
Sunset 10y ago
We had a better name for that, "clickbait".
- thomasahle 10y ago