3 ms·
This is not a productive argument, but it may be worth nothing that Science [0], Wikipedia [1], and NPR [2] are using it to refer to fabrication, not bias. [0]
by closeparen 8y ago
This is not a productive argument, but it may be worth nothing that Science [0], Wikipedia [1], and NPR [2] are using it to refer to fabrication, not bias.
[0] http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/01/majority-americans-were-not-exposed-fake-news-2016-us-election-twitter-study-suggests http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/01/majority-americans-we...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news
[2] https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/50...
- darkpuma 8y agoTo be honest I think they're pissing into the wind. (As am I when I tell people to use the word "propaganda" instead of "fake news".)
- PhantomGremlin 8y agoWikipedia does not belong on that list. It's useful for non-controversial stuff. I love to peruse it, I love to quote from it. But it can't possibly be trusted for anything as topical as "Fake News". I love the Michael Scott comment: Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information. (For those who aren't familiar with the US version of The Office: Michael Scott is not meant to be taken literally).
- gbhn 8y agoThe history is that 'fake news" was used to refer to fabricated stories. Following it's surge in.popularity following the 2016 election, Trump realized the term was catchy and claimed falsely to have invented it, but used it instead to refer to "news Trump doesn't like" of various sorts, thus making it a contentious term.