3 ms·

The problem I consistently see is that the authorities labeling something as "fake" never communicate, or seem to consider, the confidence they have in the trut

by nomel 4y ago

The problem I consistently see is that the authorities labeling something as "fake" never communicate, or seem to consider, the confidence they have in the truth for what they're labelling. They almost always to communicate with false certainty. This means they will label things incorrectly, and people will trust authorities less. In the last four years I saw the media, and other institutions, be blatantly incorrect more times than any other time in my life, which is probably related to the fall in confidence that's present [1]. Why can't the explanation be that institutions that are supposed to be trusted are clearly being untrustworthy, lowering the bar for all of society? 1. https://news.gallup.com/poll/394283/confidence-institutions-down-average-new-low.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/394283/confidence-institutions-...

rayiner 4y ago
The media has failed to reconcile with how much it failed over the past six years. My wife is a rabidly never-Trump Republican, so I followed every twist and turn of the saga through 2016-2019. Like every episode of the Rachel Maddox show, every NYT podcast, etc. The media just regurgitated every bit of rumor and innuendo for years. And they’ve refused to own up to it. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/russiagate-fiasco-taibbi-news-media-826246 https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/russ.... Imagine what the reaction to Watergate would have been like if the media had spent the preceding four years talking about how Nixon was a “literal Russian asset.” And now they want to tell us that “misinformation” is a problem? And who will be in charge of deciding what that is? Them?
Manuel_D 4y ago
The actual study [1] discussed in the OP even discourages the use of "fake news": > Finally, public officeholders must not use the label “fake news” to discredit their opponents or, in particular, the free press. The most famous example is Donald Trump, who is sometimes credited with popularizing the term “fake news” itself. The labeling of certain press outlets as fake is particularly damaging because, as explained above, fake news masquerades as real news. If citizens believe that others accept the labeling of regular news sources as fake, their view that their fellow citizens are unable to distinguish real news from fake news is exacerbated. In such a situation, the democratic system itself (through its representatives) fans the flames of epistemic distrust and confusion. For this to happen, it is sufficient that citizens are convinced that others believe the accusations that certain information is false. The use of the “fake news” label by public officials is thus a direct attack on the sociological and normative legitimacy of democratic institutions and is correspondingly insidious. Instead, public officials ought to work toward fulfilling their obligations to safeguard and promote epistemic trust among democratic citizens. 1. https://www.jesp.org/index.php/jesp/article/view/1258/362 https://www.jesp.org/index.php/jesp/article/view/1258/362
- nomel 4y ago
  > If citizens believe that others accept the labeling of regular news sources as fake, their view that their fellow citizens are unable to distinguish real news from fake news is exacerbated. And yet, this is precisely what actually happened. The regular news pushed false narratives and came to false conclusions several times in the past few years, and people believed it. Many continue to do so, because they didn't go back to read the corrections and retractions, for those agencies that had the integrity to make them. The distrust was earned, but the people are blamed? I wonder what the alternative verbiage should be, with the reality that "regular" news agencies aren't somehow immune from pushing a false narrative or conclusion. The day that we can't criticize "regular" news agencies, all owned by 6 for profit corporations, is the days that democracy is truly dead! 1. https://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control...
Buttons840 4y ago
Just as Trump's catch phrase of "fake news" seems to have permeated and influenced everyone, we need to phrase we can use to mock and draw attention to one-way communicators. Those who, as you say, never engage with opposing views. The term "fake news" didn't cause the creation of fake-news, nor the distrust in media, those things were always there, but "fake news" put an important label on them. That's powerful. So what label can we stick on those who wont communicate? Who wont allow their views to be challenged?

by nomel 4y ago

rayiner 4y ago

The media has failed to reconcile with how much it failed over the past six years. My wife is a rabidly never-Trump Republican, so I followed every twist and turn of the saga through 2016-2019. Like every episode of the Rachel Maddox show, every NYT podcast, etc. The media just regurgitated every bit of rumor and innuendo for years. And they’ve refused to own up to it. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/russiagate-fiasco-taibbi-news-media-826246 https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/russ.... Imagine what the reaction to Watergate would have been like if the media had spent the preceding four years talking about how Nixon was a “literal Russian asset.” And now they want to tell us that “misinformation” is a problem? And who will be in charge of deciding what that is? Them?

Manuel_D 4y ago

The actual study [1] discussed in the OP even discourages the use of "fake news": > Finally, public officeholders must not use the label “fake news” to discredit their opponents or, in particular, the free press. The most famous example is Donald Trump, who is sometimes credited with popularizing the term “fake news” itself. The labeling of certain press outlets as fake is particularly damaging because, as explained above, fake news masquerades as real news. If citizens believe that others accept the labeling of regular news sources as fake, their view that their fellow citizens are unable to distinguish real news from fake news is exacerbated. In such a situation, the democratic system itself (through its representatives) fans the flames of epistemic distrust and confusion. For this to happen, it is sufficient that citizens are convinced that others believe the accusations that certain information is false. The use of the “fake news” label by public officials is thus a direct attack on the sociological and normative legitimacy of democratic institutions and is correspondingly insidious. Instead, public officials ought to work toward fulfilling their obligations to safeguard and promote epistemic trust among democratic citizens. 1. https://www.jesp.org/index.php/jesp/article/view/1258/362 https://www.jesp.org/index.php/jesp/article/view/1258/362

nomel 4y ago
> If citizens believe that others accept the labeling of regular news sources as fake, their view that their fellow citizens are unable to distinguish real news from fake news is exacerbated. And yet, this is precisely what actually happened. The regular news pushed false narratives and came to false conclusions several times in the past few years, and people believed it. Many continue to do so, because they didn't go back to read the corrections and retractions, for those agencies that had the integrity to make them. The distrust was earned, but the people are blamed? I wonder what the alternative verbiage should be, with the reality that "regular" news agencies aren't somehow immune from pushing a false narrative or conclusion. The day that we can't criticize "regular" news agencies, all owned by 6 for profit corporations, is the days that democracy is truly dead! 1. https://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control...

Buttons840 4y ago

Just as Trump's catch phrase of "fake news" seems to have permeated and influenced everyone, we need to phrase we can use to mock and draw attention to one-way communicators. Those who, as you say, never engage with opposing views. The term "fake news" didn't cause the creation of fake-news, nor the distrust in media, those things were always there, but "fake news" put an important label on them. That's powerful. So what label can we stick on those who wont communicate? Who wont allow their views to be challenged?