4 ms·
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 proce
by 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 agoI 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.