3 ms·

Well, I just posted in another thread an article about Russian propaganda which contains a big exaggeration that is trivially disproved by damn Wikipedia: https

by qb45 9y ago

Well, I just posted in another thread an article about Russian propaganda which contains a big exaggeration that is trivially disproved by damn Wikipedia: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14555953 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14555953 I have no idea what their sources were but they clearly trusted them a little bit too easily. I immediately went to fact-check this because it just didn't even seem possible to me to simply fabricate a historic province or move it to a "different geographic space" like that. Too many textbooks to amend, too many people who remember. The first article I linked in that post also is fishy, though in this case at least they had their multiple sources: apparently these were a pair of elderly people and a bureaucrat, analyzing alleged hacking attempt. I don't really believe this story either.

jancsika 9y ago
I fail to see the relevance to my post, which is essentially: Read news by different journalists, and judge their veracity over time. You can't use that process with fake news. If a critical mass of people don't understand that distinction, it's bad news. A gross inaccuracy from 2014 and shoddy reasoning in WaPo's "PowerPost" by the author of a book on progressive rock music in 2017 doesn't change that truth. Edit: change "pundit" to "author"
- qb45 9y ago
  I just reacted to your claim about standards of evidence, both of the examples I quoted are things I would really be ashamed to publish myself regardless of any political leanings. It seems that when there is an agenda to advance, all reason and skepticism go out the window. But sure, Facebook fake news farms are worse.
  - jancsika 9y ago
    > It seems that when there is an agenda to advance, all reason and skepticism go out the window. Perhaps it seems that way to you, but that theory isn't fleshed out by the two pieces of evidence you provided (or any evidence I'm aware of). I can't use your theory to explain or predict the veracity of stories on, say, the front page, op-ed page, and back page of a widely read newspaper. I can explain and predict that with a theory like Chomsky and Herman's "Manufacturing Consent" (even if I don't agree with every single case study and argument in their book). However, I can explain and predict the veracity of Facebook fake news links by pointing out they aren't news because don't adhere to journalistic standards.

by qb45 9y ago

jancsika 9y ago

I fail to see the relevance to my post, which is essentially: Read news by different journalists, and judge their veracity over time. You can't use that process with fake news. If a critical mass of people don't understand that distinction, it's bad news. A gross inaccuracy from 2014 and shoddy reasoning in WaPo's "PowerPost" by the author of a book on progressive rock music in 2017 doesn't change that truth. Edit: change "pundit" to "author"

qb45 9y ago
I just reacted to your claim about standards of evidence, both of the examples I quoted are things I would really be ashamed to publish myself regardless of any political leanings. It seems that when there is an agenda to advance, all reason and skepticism go out the window. But sure, Facebook fake news farms are worse.
- jancsika 9y ago
  > It seems that when there is an agenda to advance, all reason and skepticism go out the window. Perhaps it seems that way to you, but that theory isn't fleshed out by the two pieces of evidence you provided (or any evidence I'm aware of). I can't use your theory to explain or predict the veracity of stories on, say, the front page, op-ed page, and back page of a widely read newspaper. I can explain and predict that with a theory like Chomsky and Herman's "Manufacturing Consent" (even if I don't agree with every single case study and argument in their book). However, I can explain and predict the veracity of Facebook fake news links by pointing out they aren't news because don't adhere to journalistic standards.