Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States News

President Obama On Fake News Problem: 'We Won't Know What To Fight For' (techcrunch.com) 531

An anonymous reader shares a TechCrunch article: President Barack Obama spoke in Berlin Thursday during a visit to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and during his remarks he addressed concerns about fake news circulating via social platforms like Facebook. On the subject of fake news, Obama noted that the ease with which we can make false information seem like genuine facts on platforms including "a Facebook page" means there's a great risk for audiences. Here's is what he said, "Because in an age where there's so much active misinformation, and it's packaged very well, and it looks the same when you see it on a Facebook page or you turn on your television, where some overzealousness on the part of a U.S. official is equated with constant and severe repression elsewhere, if everything seems to be the same and no distinctions are made, then we won't know what to protect. We won't know what to fight for. And we can lose so much of what we've gained in terms of the kind of democratic freedoms and market-based economies and prosperity that we've come to take for granted.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

President Obama On Fake News Problem: 'We Won't Know What To Fight For'

Comments Filter:
  • Translation (Score:4, Insightful)

    by avandesande ( 143899 ) on Friday November 18, 2016 @01:21PM (#53315997) Journal
    You should only be reading *our* fake news.
    • Re: Translation (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Exactly. Ever read a story you have even a passing personal knowledge of what happened? You'll realise then how shit journalists are, before we even get into bias

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Kierthos ( 225954 )

        There's a difference between a journalist not properly explaining some scientific matter, and MAKING SHIT UP. I don't expect your average journalist to have an understaring of, say, astrophysics, or material science, or computer programming. I do expect, that if they call themselves journalists, they are at least trying to portray the truth. Sure, maybe it's a biased truth. But that's still different from MAKING SHIT UP.

        • How many little lies does it take to warp reality into what you want?

          Is it easier to spot a thousand little lies or one big lie?

        • by lgw ( 121541 )

          So then you haven't been directly involved in something journalists were reporting on. MAKING SHIT UP is 90% of journalism. It's creative writing inspired by real events. The only 10% that's not is the sports page.

    • by Rob Riggs ( 6418 )
      Yes, because we know all news is fake. Like the moon landings, the ozone hole, and climate change.
    • You should only be reading *our* fake news.

      Precisely! Also, given that the outgoing president is still encouraging the malcontents on the streets to keep demonstrating against Trump, despite yesterday's incident of someone being injured, I'd be more comfortable if he and his comrades don't know whom to fight for.

      So let's have more of the Trump groping Ru Paul stories

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18, 2016 @01:23PM (#53316021)

    I guess it's easier to believe that people bought the clickbaity fake news about lizard people than to admit that you lost the election because people are sick of being lied to, when they can prove from DKIM authenticated emails that you're lying to them, both about the email and about it being modified.

    • by necro81 ( 917438 ) on Friday November 18, 2016 @02:59PM (#53317151) Journal

      I guess it's easier to believe that people bought the clickbaity fake news about lizard people than to admit that you lost the election because people are sick of being lied to

      Can't both be correct statements? I get that lots of people in the election were fed up, bring the roof down on their heads, and voted that way, come what may. But I also think that there were plenty of people who based that choice in no small part on things that they thought were true, but that with a small amount of critical thinking and investigation, could be demonstrated to be false.

  • by clubby ( 1144121 ) on Friday November 18, 2016 @01:24PM (#53316043)
    Propaganda is most effective when it's least expected. Citizens of the USSR knew the government was lying to them regularly, and developed a healthy skepticism of its statements. I think many Americans believe their free-speech society is propaganda-free, and as such, have a poor "immune response." Maybe a pervasive fake news problem will hone the citizens' bullshit detectors. Here's hoping.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      To the contrary, many Americans assume it is a lie, so they don't even pay attention to the truth when it's screaming right into their faces.

      I have run into folks who claim a Hurricane evacuation order is a lie so the government can loot their property.

      They don't detect bullshit, they generate more.

    • In post election polls 78 percent of people [breitbart.com] said the media was biased.

      Even if you don't trust that source (and seeing as how you believe some fantasy about people trusting the media I'm pretty sure you think Breitbart is the devil) there are many other polls that say similar things.

      Never have people been more sure the media is lying to them; the fact is we all know the news today is propaganda. Why else do you think trump won when the media was posting false stories about him daily?

      Not to mention they cont

    • Well, I hope so to but currently the "wisdom of the masses" is generally trusted among internet cranks, Facebook moms and social crusaders over rationality.

      I mean, "this image of a tweet went viral - it HAS to be true!" is startling to me because of how such diverse groups all seem to be manipulated by this sort of pre-packaged confirmation bias (I don't know if that's the right term).

      Even after junk like Kony 2012 people still don't stop themselves and think first, particularly if it fits their own persona

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday November 18, 2016 @01:25PM (#53316051)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by dgood ( 139443 )

      It's not Obama's fault that the insurance companies decided not to allow that. The ACA had provisions to grandfather existing policies but the insurance companies decided to just drop them instead.

    • How did all those articles about how Obama is coming to take your guns work out for you?

      • For those in CT, NJ, NY, CA, and many more states? Well, they lost a lot of their guns.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I remember the "no fly" "no buy" where they could put you on a secret list, and not give you a reason, then refuse to take you off, and not let you buy a gun because of it. I know lots of people on the "no fly" list for no reason ever given.

        Thankfully we have a Congress that stopped him. So, yes, he did come for them and was stopped. Thanks for your "fake news"

    • by T.E.D. ( 34228 )

      Pretty well. I kept my doctor and health plan. So did most everyone one I know.

      The only people who didn't were people who were paying into those scam plans that offered no real coverage, which the ACA made illegal. If they were mad at it no longer being legal to fleece them, I honestly don't know what to say for them. Perhaps they should take up watching TV preachers so they can throw their money away that way instead.

  • First Amendment (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Friday November 18, 2016 @01:26PM (#53316075)

    Sounds like someone is testing memes to use in "improving" the First Amendment.

    Personally, I like that one the way it is, so I'll have to give him a "fail" on his first attempt to spin things as "if only we didn't have that nasty Freedom of the Press..."

    • I'm disappointed that your comment is so far down in the list. The first amendment is first in the bill of rights for a good reason. The answer to fake news is more news. We should be celebrating the fake news because in many places news is controlled by the government. We don't want to become one of them.

      Edwin

  • For some years now, the media has lacked the revenues to afford investigative journalism. Instead, they have pursued propaganda. Now they are outraged that they have competition.

  • And we can lose so much of what we've gained in terms of the kind of democratic freedoms and market-based economies and prosperity that we've come to take for granted.

    Well, we gained those no thanks to you, Mr. Obama. In fact, you spent most of your administration attacking and slowly degrading our democratic freedoms, market economy, and prosperity. Naturally, you progress to attacking the First Amendment.

  • This is the same as it's always been with the mainstream press. The only difference between the New York Times and Facebook is that the barriers to entry have been lowered, and now everybody can play.

  • You want to preserve democratic freedoms by censoring fake news? Wouldn't that be like... taking away the most important democratic freedom of them all, free speech?

    Because sooner or later, the entity tasked with determining what's fake and what's not could fall into people currently not on your side.

    Solution to fake news is to have people ignore obviously stupid shit. The more intelligent ones already do so. If stupid people wanna keep reading stupid shit, well then by golly that's the god-given right.

    • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Friday November 18, 2016 @01:34PM (#53316189) Journal

      I don't think anyone is suggesting censoring fake news. But I do think organizations like Facebook, if they're going to get into the game in any way, have an obligation to fact check anything they're claiming is news. It will never be perfect, even where you have perfect journalistic ethics, but at the moment we are literally seeing people fabricating stories out of thin air and then getting them promoted by the likes of Facebook as actual news.

      • I don't think anyone is suggesting censoring fake news.

        Germany certainly is.

        But I do think organizations like Facebook, if they're going to get into the game in any way, have an obligation to fact check anything they're claiming is news.

        When you say "obligation", you are being deliberately vague: if someone attacks you for your statement, you simply say you mean "moral obligation", but you're actually implying a legal obligation.

        but at the moment we are literally seeing people fabricating stories out of thi

    • No I don't want to censor "news". But just like I don't want to have a unlicensed quack give me a quadruple bypass, I don't think you should be allowed to call it "news" when it is fiction. I can see two solutions. One make it like broadcast TV, where an FCC controls how you behave since the tv airwaves are public. Alternatively, if you want to call yourself news, and you report falsehoods, there is a fine, which is progressive. Every time you "broadcast" a falsehood, fine doubles. Fine starts at 1 dollar.

  • by tacokill ( 531275 ) on Friday November 18, 2016 @01:34PM (#53316187)
    This new narrative is doing nothing more than trying to lay the groundwork for later action. You see, if information can be labeled "fake" - using whatever standard they plan to use - then the next logical step is to put legal limits on the "fake" information.

    Ultimate, AM talk radio will be the in the gunsights. The left is PISSED that their usual main stream media tricks and gotchas didn't work this time so instead of changing their message, they want to change the rules of the "news" game.

    P.S. It won't work. They blew their wad on Trump and now nobody believes what they say anymore.
    • by RichPowers ( 998637 ) on Friday November 18, 2016 @02:20PM (#53316705)

      Agreed. Funny how only the establishment Left complains about "fake" news. They've lost control of the narrative and know it; Obama's impotent farewell lecture tour is a last-ditch effort to discredit the "alt" sites and networks that helped defeat Hillary Clinton.

      Whatever you think of him as a person or his policy recommendations, Donald Trump is a genius political operator who enjoys outfoxing the establishment media. It's like watching a master-level troll repeatedly outplay every smug asshole in NYC-NOVA-DC. That's why he calls the New York Times "failing" in his tweets to millions of people and decides to let TMZ of all networks air a documentary about him. (And lest anyone pity the Times, remember how they were in bed with the establishment during the run-up to the Iraq War, promulgating all sorts of lies to drum up support for that fiasco.)

      When the First Amendment was ratified, every newspaper in the republic was blatantly partisan -- if your operatives weren't discrediting your enemies through anonymous columns, you were doing it wrong. I much prefer an environment where everyone knows where everyone stands, instead of putting on airs about being some unbiased source of truth even though you're actually in bed with the state.

      Besides, blatant newspaper partisanship back then in no way precluded genius works like the Federalist and Antifederalist letters from being published and shared. Ignore the smug elitists on the Left who think only they can decide what's "fake" and what is not.

  • Dancing around it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by paratek ( 105081 ) on Friday November 18, 2016 @01:38PM (#53316249)
    This dancing around a Ministry of Truth is extremely uncomfortable.
  • by Trailer Trash ( 60756 ) on Friday November 18, 2016 @01:38PM (#53316255) Homepage

    I mean, it's really odd. Everybody who's so fucking concerned about fake news now didn't seem to be too upset when Dan Rather was pushing fake news.

    Kind of like everybody who's so bothered by Trump being a pervert didn't seem to mind when Bill Clinton was being a pervert.

    Weird, like there's a double standard or something.

    • by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Friday November 18, 2016 @03:27PM (#53317413) Homepage

      I mean, it's really odd. Everybody who's so fucking concerned about fake news now didn't seem to be too upset when Dan Rather was pushing fake news.

      A lot of people were upset. The mainstream media-- the same usual suspects you call left-leaning-- came down on 60 Minutes like a ton of bricks. 60 Minutes ran a correction in prime time, fired the people involved in approving the story to go on the air with inadequate fact checking, and asked Dan Rather to resign.

      That seems pretty "upset" to me.

      So, your demonstration that mainstream media does fake news is a single news story fourteen years ago that was based on documents that turned out to be forged, for which the staff of the program was fired or asked to resign.

  • I still don't know which is worse; 1000 little lies or a big lie.

    I guess the big lie is easier to falsify?

    • All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resor

  • by quax ( 19371 ) on Friday November 18, 2016 @01:40PM (#53316279)

    Russia spends over $1B annually on disinformation, and that's just the money we know about. [aspeninstitute.cz]

    Facebook and Twitter build them the perfect playpen.

  • Remember the Maine (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    We won't know what to fight for.

    Fight for the USS Maine! Fight for the causes approved by our responsible, professional journalists, and avenge those brave, American sailors slaughtered by Spanish treachery!

    Nothing is ever new. What happens today has already happened before and will happen again.

  • So subscribe to both a very liberal and a very conservative newspaper that are well known that actually still do news - I know - that's getting tougher and tougher as more and more go to just running feeds. Pick up a local paper subscription as well if you don't live in a major city. Hard to pick good examples but maybe the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times/Washington Post. Read all three thoroughly. If the facts of a story are similar in each, then there is a greater chance (not in any way approac

  • Over here, anyone publishing anything is required to run a retraction at the same size in the same font on the same page for the same amount of time (and so on, you get the idea) as the original story if said story turns out to be fake.

    That sure shut up a lot of tabloids that loved to invent shit. Enforce this on blogs and you'll see that bullshit stop pretty fucking quickly.

  • ...just educate our citizenry better so they're not so entirely fucking GULLIBLE?

    And perhaps be a little more skeptical of news generally? I don't care WHAT source, it all comes from a place of bias, and should be read in that context.

    No, not all bias is identical; the slavering bias of MSNBC or the worst Fox programs is NOT the same as the subtle pervasive bias of the NYT. But they all have it, it's endemic to being human.

  • Seems like the Democrats and media are doing all they can to set up a meme about fake news being everywhere just as an escape route, right before Trump gets in office and follows through on his promise of draining the swamp.

"I've seen the forgeries I've sent out." -- John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US), about forging net news articles

Working...