3 ms·
The last 20 years certain elements have been pushing distrust and hatred for both politicians and journalists. However I'd hope that we move to some agreed sta
by isostatic 8y ago
The last 20 years certain elements have been pushing distrust and hatred for both politicians and journalists.
However I'd hope that we move to some agreed standard of signing of videos, so their source can be confirmed by the player. It doesn't matter if that source is the bbc, washington post, alex jones, national enquirer, the onion, or "Bob Joe Billy-Bob the Third", it means you know where the video came from, and can trust (or not) it based on that information.
A video with a bbc banner showing the president saying something could easily be faked. One that is signed by the BBC will only be fake if the BBC itself is publishing it as a fake, and that comes with a reputational impact.
Sites that reversion that video (recompress it etc) can simply sign it by themselves. They could claim that they took an original BBC item to do it, and then it's how much you trust that site.
People see someone, be it Donald Trump, or John Simpson, or Walter Mondale, and instinctively know that person said what they can see. That's changing, and it's going to be a long time before our brains change. Even now, you read some rubbish that you consciously know is rubbish, but part of it lodges in your subconcious and affects your thinking down the line. At least if you know who created the video, it gives you a fighting chance.
With this system anyone can still publish, even anonymously, but reputations are hard to gain and easy to lose. I don't like the daily mail, but I know if they publish a video of Obama saying "Killmonger was right, and President Trump is a total and complete dipshit", I'll probably believe he did. If he didn't, that will come out, and the daily mail is off the list of sources I trust to not make crap up (rather than just bend things), and it makes it far easier for reasonable people to dismiss it.
This moves the onus on news sources to be more discerning in their facts, but if they get it wrong then they lose their readers. By signing the news, they are backing it with their reputation. If Alex Jones has signed it, then he's putting his reputation on the line (if he has any reputation for saying something).
- vkou 8y ago> A video with a bbc banner showing the president saying something could easily be faked. One that is signed by the BBC will only be fake if the BBC itself is publishing it as a fake, and that comes with a reputational impact. Nobody cares much about the reputational impact. Fringe tabloid fake-news, and mainstream 'fake'-news gets plenty of viewers. BBC itself has manufactured video 'evidence' during the Libyan war. [1] Yet, most people think it's an accurate source of news. [1] Their 'live broadcasts' showed video of people in India waving the Indian tri-color, which the BBC has claimed was rebels in Libya's Green Square waving the old Libyan tri-color. But, eh, who cares about honesty - when you've got a politically sensitive story to tell.
- prepend 8y agoMy issue is that I don’t think I know of a news org that I trust to be both ethical and correct enough that their banner would matter enough for a significant video. CBS and Dan Rather takes documents months before the 2004 election [0] and Rather still have 400k+ twitter followers. Even BBC didn’t cover the Iraq War properly when we really needed it to [1]. I read news for opinion and some awareness. But I’d trust a video of Trump strangling a hobo about the same from BBC as TMZ and would need a lot of verification. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3890821.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3890821.stm