5 ms·

Who upvotes this kind of article, btw? You know that fake news means "stories that the current encumbment doesn't like" in contrast to "stories that the current

by erikb 9y ago

Who upvotes this kind of article, btw? You know that fake news means "stories that the current encumbment doesn't like" in contrast to "stories that the current encumbment likes" which is then called news. For you as the reader one is not more helpful or valuable than the other. Having both is what we call free media. What this says is that Snapchat is a good example of government controlled media. Not something to like.

jjjensen90 9y ago
Actually, outside of Twitter arguments and comment section accusations, I think the real definition of fake news is news that is either partially or totally fabricated and presented as fact. For example, "Obama signs executive order banning the national anthem", or "Trump claims victory after Castro's death! 'I did it!'". These are untrue irrespective of the current incumbent... In fact, your conflation of true fake news with "politically slanted journalist" is one reason it has such power. People just assume that they are reading real news that caters to their interests and doesn't cloud the truth like the "other guys," when in fact they may be reading and sharing complete nonsense.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- erikb 9y ago
  "fake news is news that is [...] partially [...] fabricated" that is ALL news not fake news. All news are written to influence you in one direction or another. There's always stuff that is left unspoken or added and things that are expressed this way or the other. Example: Pro-Saudi news says "The people fight against Assad terror regime in Syria" and pro-Iran news says "Syrian government fights against terrorists" (that were the stories about 2014 if I remember correctly). Depending on which side you stand articles with your phrasing are the "news" and articles with the other phrasing are the "fake news". The truth would have been "ongoing battle between Iran and Saudi Arabia for leadership of the Arab/Persian world". I don't remember a single news paper reporting that in US, Europe, Russia, China or local.
  - sk0g 9y ago
    Pointless argument, so people can make up completely random stories, and as long as there's a tiny portion of truth, such as say person A being referred to actually existing, it should be considered news? I'm sure even you don't believe that though, people seem to enjoy making pointless arguments a bit too much, at times.
    - erikb 9y ago
      No the other way around. You interpret my statement as "how to define what should be considered news" while I'm saying "what you consider news is not better than fake news but just as fake".
guelo 9y ago
That people believe the fake news that fake news is the realest news shows the dangerous power of fake news.
- erikb 9y ago
  also as said in another branch of this discussion: It's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that real news are just as bad as fake news. This is not an improvement of your estimation of fake news, but a decrease in the value of what you consider "real news". There is not a single real news written down. You can only gather it by understanding that everything you read is mostly meant to influence you. And by understanding how the authors try to influence you you can guess what each party wants.
  - guelo 9y ago
    That's just pointlessly cynical. Some events actually happened while other events didn't. I read that my local high school won a math competition, should I doubt that it happened? What is the journalist trying to influence me with that?

by erikb 9y ago

jjjensen90 9y ago

Actually, outside of Twitter arguments and comment section accusations, I think the real definition of fake news is news that is either partially or totally fabricated and presented as fact. For example, "Obama signs executive order banning the national anthem", or "Trump claims victory after Castro's death! 'I did it!'". These are untrue irrespective of the current incumbent... In fact, your conflation of true fake news with "politically slanted journalist" is one reason it has such power. People just assume that they are reading real news that caters to their interests and doesn't cloud the truth like the "other guys," when in fact they may be reading and sharing complete nonsense.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
erikb 9y ago
"fake news is news that is [...] partially [...] fabricated" that is ALL news not fake news. All news are written to influence you in one direction or another. There's always stuff that is left unspoken or added and things that are expressed this way or the other. Example: Pro-Saudi news says "The people fight against Assad terror regime in Syria" and pro-Iran news says "Syrian government fights against terrorists" (that were the stories about 2014 if I remember correctly). Depending on which side you stand articles with your phrasing are the "news" and articles with the other phrasing are the "fake news". The truth would have been "ongoing battle between Iran and Saudi Arabia for leadership of the Arab/Persian world". I don't remember a single news paper reporting that in US, Europe, Russia, China or local.
- sk0g 9y ago
  Pointless argument, so people can make up completely random stories, and as long as there's a tiny portion of truth, such as say person A being referred to actually existing, it should be considered news? I'm sure even you don't believe that though, people seem to enjoy making pointless arguments a bit too much, at times.
  - erikb 9y ago
    No the other way around. You interpret my statement as "how to define what should be considered news" while I'm saying "what you consider news is not better than fake news but just as fake".

guelo 9y ago

That people believe the fake news that fake news is the realest news shows the dangerous power of fake news.

erikb 9y ago
also as said in another branch of this discussion: It's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that real news are just as bad as fake news. This is not an improvement of your estimation of fake news, but a decrease in the value of what you consider "real news". There is not a single real news written down. You can only gather it by understanding that everything you read is mostly meant to influence you. And by understanding how the authors try to influence you you can guess what each party wants.
- guelo 9y ago
  That's just pointlessly cynical. Some events actually happened while other events didn't. I read that my local high school won a math competition, should I doubt that it happened? What is the journalist trying to influence me with that?