3 ms·

I think the main problem with these sorts of measures is two fold: a) who gets to decide what constitutes "fake news," would the BuzzFeed story that the Specia

I think the main problem with these sorts of measures is two fold: a) who gets to decide what constitutes "fake news," would the BuzzFeed story that the Special Council discredited be considered "fake news?" If not, why? How would that story be different than any other that's fake? b) The idea of labeling "fake news" often emboldens believers of fake news to think of some grand conspiracy to hide the truth. Another thing is that the "fake news" scare is largely a farce. A recent study showed that people that share fake news are largely older...well, that's what the headlines highlighted. However, in the actual study they found sharing of fake news to be incredibly low and not really even terribly common. I think the thing I most fear in media, is not obvious fake news sites, it's actual journalists rushing to judgement or being told by and editor they need click/engagement numbers up (this happens, I've worked in multiple news rooms.) What I call "outrage culture" is largely a corporate creation to drive clicks/viewership and social engagement, because current media models need this sort of thing. If you ever go through media training for cable news (I have) they will tell you to play things up. They also often don't go after level headed people, they want conflict. Conflict gets viewers and viewers get ad dollars. That to me, is a far bigger threat...not only because it divides us, but because it discredits the media itself in the minds of many, on actual important stories. So in those cases, people do turn to alternative (or overtly partisan) media sources...and that's where "fake news" often breeds and feeds off of. I think if we really want to battle "fake news" we need to be reevaluating business models of media companies. News should not be something people "hate watch" or "hate click" because what they are watching is so divisive or nonsensical. The media is really its own worst enemy here.

ljm 8y ago
There’s also the problem of people sharing meme content ontaining obviously misleading information, like in big anti-vax groups. I don’t think you can run a NewsGuard for badly compressed JPEGs. More to the point, I think the issue goes beyond media and into culture. People want to be outraged and the media is happy to oblige. Something in that equation needs to change.
dfxm12 8y ago
would the BuzzFeed story that the Special Council discredited be considered "fake news?" For better or worse, this product judges sources, not individual stories. FWIW, Buzzfeed News lets their readers know, right in the lede, that this particular story is disputed by Mueller. As others have mentioned in this thread, a hard definition for "fake news" is hard to pinpoint, but disreputable sources certainly don't own up to mistakes like this.
the_rosentotter 8y ago
> The idea of labeling "fake news" often emboldens believers of fake news to think of some grand conspiracy to hide the truth. Well that's what it is - an attempt to bully media into self-censorship, or provide a fig leaf for actual censorship.
siruncledrew 8y ago
Both a) and b) are good points. I would like to see how Newsguard defines 'fakes news'. It seems to be a nuanced term that will have different views and definitions depending on who you ask. "Fake news" the term may be newly popularized, but it's not a new concept. It seems implicitly difficult to judge 'news' because news is not always first-hand, so there is no way of exactly chronicling what happened without directly experiencing the source of the news. There's an inherent perception/reality dilemma based on our own cognition and processing of events. Fake news could be established in different ways, and gets harder to judge the more nuanced it gets, partially when the events are being reported and re-reported using secondary or tertiary sources.

ljm 8y ago

There’s also the problem of people sharing meme content ontaining obviously misleading information, like in big anti-vax groups. I don’t think you can run a NewsGuard for badly compressed JPEGs. More to the point, I think the issue goes beyond media and into culture. People want to be outraged and the media is happy to oblige. Something in that equation needs to change.

dfxm12 8y ago

would the BuzzFeed story that the Special Council discredited be considered "fake news?" For better or worse, this product judges sources, not individual stories. FWIW, Buzzfeed News lets their readers know, right in the lede, that this particular story is disputed by Mueller. As others have mentioned in this thread, a hard definition for "fake news" is hard to pinpoint, but disreputable sources certainly don't own up to mistakes like this.

the_rosentotter 8y ago

> The idea of labeling "fake news" often emboldens believers of fake news to think of some grand conspiracy to hide the truth. Well that's what it is - an attempt to bully media into self-censorship, or provide a fig leaf for actual censorship.

siruncledrew 8y ago

Both a) and b) are good points. I would like to see how Newsguard defines 'fakes news'. It seems to be a nuanced term that will have different views and definitions depending on who you ask. "Fake news" the term may be newly popularized, but it's not a new concept. It seems implicitly difficult to judge 'news' because news is not always first-hand, so there is no way of exactly chronicling what happened without directly experiencing the source of the news. There's an inherent perception/reality dilemma based on our own cognition and processing of events. Fake news could be established in different ways, and gets harder to judge the more nuanced it gets, partially when the events are being reported and re-reported using secondary or tertiary sources.