4 ms·

If you can't tell the difference between The Daily Mail and The Guardian based on stylistic cues, I don't know what to tell you. It is true that stylistic cues

If you can't tell the difference between The Daily Mail and The Guardian based on stylistic cues, I don't know what to tell you. It is true that stylistic cues won't tell you everything. The rest, unfortunately, is a lot harder to teach. Avoiding the obviously-shoddy sites is sufficient as a start; the rest is really going to be dependent on particular knowledge in areas like science, history, etc. EDIT: Kinda surprised at the downvotes I'm getting here. Have you _looked_ at the Daily Mail frontpage?

ben_w 8y ago
> If you can't tell the difference between The Daily Mail and The Guardian based on stylistic cues, I don't know what to tell you. Then you missed my point. Of course I can tell the difference, but which one is true — the one founded in 1821 or the one founded in 1896?
- maldusiecle 8y ago
  Don't look at the founding date, that's completely irrelevant. Look at the Daily Mail homepage. Does it look like a news site, or does it look like a tabloid?
  - BeetleB 8y ago
    >Does it look like a news site, or does it look like a tabloid? I think you've just demonstrated why many people believe fake news. A lot of them are set up to look like regular news sites. Fake news sites have been around for a lot longer than people think. I remember quite a few years ago reading an article about an event where some minority Christians were being mistreated in some non-Christian country. It looked like any other news article. The incident in question was reported in multiple news sites. Then one person (or a team?) exposed it all. The event never happened. It was not obvious, and he/they had to do a lot of sleuthing to find out who owned the sites - a Christian advocacy group. All the other sites reporting on the incident were likewise (perhaps all under the same company - can't remember). Years before 2016. The only thing that may have clued me into it being fake news was that I hadn't heard of the news site. But then again, most people have not heard of most news sites. Don't look at style or appearances. Really. Don't. Oh, and as bad as The Daily Mail is, it is full of accurate (albeit misleading) material - compared to a typical tabloid in the US. I can easily dismiss nonsense I see on tabloids in the grocery store. With The Daily Mail, I have to work to find out if it is true or not.
    - maldusiecle 8y ago
      > I think you've just demonstrated why many people believe fake news. A lot of them are set up to look like regular news sites. You're reading my argument backwards. I'm not saying you should trust any website that looks reputable. I'm saying you should _distrust_ any site that looks _disreputable_. That's the first step, and it's a huge improvement over trusting everything (which is what most people who buy these fake news sites do).

ben_w 8y ago

> If you can't tell the difference between The Daily Mail and The Guardian based on stylistic cues, I don't know what to tell you. Then you missed my point. Of course I can tell the difference, but which one is true — the one founded in 1821 or the one founded in 1896?

maldusiecle 8y ago
Don't look at the founding date, that's completely irrelevant. Look at the Daily Mail homepage. Does it look like a news site, or does it look like a tabloid?
- BeetleB 8y ago
  >Does it look like a news site, or does it look like a tabloid? I think you've just demonstrated why many people believe fake news. A lot of them are set up to look like regular news sites. Fake news sites have been around for a lot longer than people think. I remember quite a few years ago reading an article about an event where some minority Christians were being mistreated in some non-Christian country. It looked like any other news article. The incident in question was reported in multiple news sites. Then one person (or a team?) exposed it all. The event never happened. It was not obvious, and he/they had to do a lot of sleuthing to find out who owned the sites - a Christian advocacy group. All the other sites reporting on the incident were likewise (perhaps all under the same company - can't remember). Years before 2016. The only thing that may have clued me into it being fake news was that I hadn't heard of the news site. But then again, most people have not heard of most news sites. Don't look at style or appearances. Really. Don't. Oh, and as bad as The Daily Mail is, it is full of accurate (albeit misleading) material - compared to a typical tabloid in the US. I can easily dismiss nonsense I see on tabloids in the grocery store. With The Daily Mail, I have to work to find out if it is true or not.
  - maldusiecle 8y ago
    > I think you've just demonstrated why many people believe fake news. A lot of them are set up to look like regular news sites. You're reading my argument backwards. I'm not saying you should trust any website that looks reputable. I'm saying you should _distrust_ any site that looks _disreputable_. That's the first step, and it's a huge improvement over trusting everything (which is what most people who buy these fake news sites do).