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.
Translation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Translation (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Precisely (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the mainstream media is not as bad as the fake news. It's not perfect, but the idea that it is as bad as people who just willfully invent rumors out of thin air and disseminate them as truth is absurd. It's a classic fallacy of the false equivalency.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And who is going to teach this supposed ethics? Sites like Breitbarts?
Journalism has its flaws, more often than not to do with a lack of complete information. But having alt-right types lecture the MSM on ethics is pretty ridiculous, considering the alt-right is literally fueled by people who have absolutely no problem inventing complete fabrications, and who readily admit that truth is irrelevant.
Re:Mainstream media DOES invent news (Score:5, Insightful)
But having alt-right types lecture the MSM on ethics is pretty ridiculous
This opinion delivered to MightyMartian courtesy of, you guessed it, the main stream media. So CNN et al who were in the tank for the left the entire election is smearing news sources on the right. And you fell for it. Wow.
Oh, and since you were so busy lapping up what your TV told you, you should note the fact that the so-called "alt-right" doesn't even exist. The term is used to group disparate people the left doesn't agree with into a little box so they can smear them with epithets like "racist". It's disgusting. If you had the intellect, you'd be disgusted with yourself for falling for it.
Re:Mainstream media DOES invent news (Score:5, Informative)
the so-called "alt-right" doesn't even exist.
The term "alt-right" was not imposed by a leftist conspiracy. It started as a term of self-identification for people that disagreed with the economic policies of the establishment-right, while advocating even more extreme social policies. The alt-right people that I know (such as my idiot brother-in-law), wear the label with pride.
Re:Mainstream media DOES invent news (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, because nobody thinks alt-right isn't literally just a nicer word for white supremacy.
Maybe if you showed me a definition of it, like say on wikipedia?
The alt-right has no formal ideology, although various sources have stated that white nationalism is fundamental.[1][2][7] It has also been associated with white supremacism,[3][13][14] Islamophobia,[15][16][17][18][19] antifeminism,[1][12] homophobia,[20][21][22] antisemitism,[1][2][4] ethno-nationalism,[23] right-wing populism,[7] nativism,[24] traditionalism,[25] and the neoreactionary movement
whoops!
Re:Mainstream media DOES invent news (Score:5, Interesting)
Ahhh, I see you've used facts to rebut my biting comment that left your inner racist child whining.
Fine, here's a few other definitions:
"a group of people with various far-right and often racist opinions who are active especially online"
http://www.macmillandictionary... [macmillandictionary.com]
"the "alt-right" — is considered to be a subset pushing for a "white ethno-state," as Republican strategist Rick Wilson"
http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]
But please, if these aren't suitable to your tastes, find a definition - outside of alt-right sites - that says anything different.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The so-called trusted media makes stuff up all the time. They are just more subtle about it.
Misleading headlines
"Some Sources Say"
"Report: " then some narrative they want to push.
All the while leaving themselves an out where they can claim that they were mislead, some report was wrong, or even just saying, "we were wrong", but long after the damage has been done.
Re:Mainstream media DOES invent news (Score:5, Insightful)
And who is going to teach this supposed ethics? Sites like Breitbarts?
Certainly not Breitbarts nor Fox News. But certainly not the Huffington Post, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and on and on the list goes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Funny that, because many times Breitbart has more objectivity and ethics then oh Huffpo. Or CBS, NBC or ABC. Far more then buzzfeed for sure. Remember those DNC leaked emails? You know the ones, where reporters were sending stuff directly to the DNC for approval. Or where the DNC and reporters were so chummy that they could get things removed from articles if it would look bad. Or the media and the DNC hosting fundraisers? You don't? Well that's okay. This is only a small sample [reddit.com]. After all, with C
Re: Mainstream media DOES invent news (Score:5, Informative)
For those who actually hold a security clearance part of that is not trying to access material you are not cleared for. Sorry that doesn't fit your narrative.
CNN's news report was not targeting the tiny segment of people with security clearances (as low as CNN's ratings are, that part of the viewing demographic is likely ZERO), they were saying that to everyone. There's a good analysis of where they were getting this (blatantly false) idea from over at Pope Hat [popehat.com].
This is the SAME technique that sites like Snopes and other biased "fact checkers" use. If they want to defend someone's statement, they inject some qualifier that was NEVER included in the original statement, and then claim it was "Mostly True", or better. Nobody buys that crap but the other people in the echo chamber they are talking to.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The Breitbart site, just so you know, is a bit of an embarassment to the mainstream internet-savvy right. Breitbart was a hero, exposing the lies of the left (and mostly, the unwillingness to cover any story that hurts the left in any way). I think he'd be appalled at the web site's low bar for editorial fact-checking.
I think it will take another 10 years or so before it happens: people stop giving clicks to clickbait sites. Once the financial incentive to constantly invent clickbaity stories dies, integ
Re:Mainstream media DOES invent news (Score:5, Interesting)
Their obvious political bias all in one direction does nothing to help them, of course.
I read an interview this morning with a guy who runs of the "fake news" sites. He would refer to what he does as parody or satire, but other people don't see it that way. For example, he wrote a story that someone who was protesting a Donald Trump rally in Arizona was paid $3500 to protest. He thought that was satire. But it was picked up by ABC and tweeted out by Trump's campaign manager as if it were true. He thought that they would fact check and find out that it was fake, but no one ever did. He mentioned how he makes $10k per month from ad revenue, and it's because people share his stories that fit a conservative Trump supporter narrative without ever bothering to fact check anything (or even think critically about whether something is believable - like the "Amish lobby" that was claiming that all Amish people were going to vote for Trump). People eat it up, don't question it, and if it ever does get questioned people have moved on and don't pay attention to the correction, they just assumed it was true and move on.
Here's the interview if you're curious. [washingtonpost.com]
Is that it? You posted on Facebook a couple weeks ago that you had a lot of ideas for satirizing Clinton and other figures, but that "no joke ... in doing this for six years, the people who clicked ads the most, like it's the cure for cancer, is right-wing Republicans." That makes it sound like you’ve found targeting conservatives is more profitable.
Yeah, it is. They don't fact-check.
That "bias" that you're referring to is a product of the free market. If conservatives seem to be more gullible, then you write things targeting them. It's not "bias" so much as knowing your audience.
Re:Mainstream media DOES invent news (Score:4, Insightful)
Problem is that the MSM News Outlets are so in the tank for Liberals that it isn't even funny, and they aren't even trying to hide it. They are constantly being caught doing hatchet jobs for quick soundbites that seem to fit the narrative they are driving.
Re:Mainstream media DOES invent news (Score:5, Insightful)
All major news outlets are too close to the political parties. You want to know who is to blame for that? The political parties. Thank the Commission on Presidential Debates (composed of the Democratic and Republican parties) for creating an environment where news organizations need to play by the rules of the parties, in return for things like debate sponsorships, interviews, "insider" access, etc. The parties have cultivated this relationship with the media for a long time, it's part of the foundation at this point. The Commission needs to be broken up, and political debates need to be publicly funded and available to air by any outlet. Maybe then news organizations can start having a more critical eye on the political system, and this election should be concrete proof that people want that exposed.
Re:Mainstream media DOES invent news (FTFY) (Score:3, Insightful)
All major news outlets are too close to the political parties. You want to know who is to blame for that? The NEWS OUTLETS. (FTFY)
Moderator note: your personal disagreement with the following analysis does not make it less relevant or true. Please keep your post election rage/safe space down-mod votes to yourself.
The reality is that for about 30 years, the MSM has been in the tank for the progressive left. They started teaching journalists in school that their goal shouldn't be to "get the scoop" or "get
Re:Mainstream media DOES invent news (FTFY) (Score:5, Insightful)
All major news outlets are too close to the political parties. You want to know who is to blame for that? The NEWS OUTLETS. (FTFY)
You, you didn't fix that for me. The parties created the pay-for-play system, and the media companies are all too happy to play along. They love those sweet debate dollars. And Fox News is not immune, they are also part of this system. This system was created by the 2 major parties, the networks just went along with it.
The reality is that for about 30 years, the MSM has been in the tank for the progressive left.
Yes, reality has a liberal bias and all that.
in the case of Fox news, their formula is quite simple, they have guests on from both positions, and their commentators provide relevant history, background, and challenge both positions with facts.
This is misleading though, it is not balanced. It still serves their own bias. When they have a discussion about whether or not global warming is caused by human activity, and they have one guy who agrees, and one who disagrees, that is not balanced. It would be much more accurate if they have that discussion and they have the guy who disagrees and 49 scientists who agree, that would more closely resemble the state of the debate. When they claim that it's a split issue they're not doing a service to anyone, and they're showing their own bias. That's the fallacy of their model, presenting issues like that in a 50/50 light when they are not.
why they are the most trusted news network in the US
It's not such a ringing endorsement to say that Fox is the network that is the most trusted by people who will believe anything that fits their bias. The reason their ratings are so much higher than other stations is because they are the only one who has a strongly conservative bias, so if that fits your view and that's the particular echo chamber you want to watch, you only have 1 option. If you prefer a different bias there are several other options which split the vote.
Keep in mind that this entire story is how the election discourse was affected by conservatives or right-wingers believing fake news. They're the ones who were roped into believing this stuff. I'm not saying they're the only ones with that problem though, maybe over the next 4 years it will be more profitable to create fake stories to anger liberals and then you'll see it go the other way, but for now the story is right-wingers believing anything they read without question. So, yeah, Fox may be the most trusted network but consider the critical thinking skills of their audience.
The news they put out is more accurate than most of the other MSM outlets
Do you have any source for that claim, considering the whole thing how we're talking about fact checking and accurate reporting? Or did you just say that because it feels right? Here's a summary from 2014 [politifact.com] giving the least false rating to CNN, over half of Fox's claims were false. Here it is from 2015 [politifact.com], with the same results. Here are the current ratings for Fox [politifact.com] and CNN [politifact.com]. If you have other sources which support your claim, feel free to show them. In the past I've consistently seen NPR as the most factual (not included in the above, which is for cable news). BBC and WSJ are also well-trusted. As for Rush Limbaugh, he's trust just slightly more than Buzzfeed [businessinsider.com].
If you want to cite some other study or numbers which show that Fox is more accurate, feel free. If yo
Re: (Score:2)
Irony: Washington Post uses a guy who creates fake news as a source on fake news. Sure OK.
Re: (Score:2)
ACs making lists.
This new Trump era is kinda crazy.
Re:Mainstream media DOES invent news (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet, you can google
"site:craigslist.org 1500 week stop trump"
and see ads in major cities across the US offering to pay people to protest Trump.
Thank you, you are a perfect example of the people he was talking about. I post an interview with a guy who admits to posting fake Craigslist ads for protesters, and your rebuttal to that is to tell me to look up protest ads on Craigslist. You believe it, because you want it to be true. Do you ever think about it? I mean, actually think about it? People will protest Trump *for free*, they will do it by themselves, organized by themselves, at no cost. So why the hell would someone pay people to do something that they're going to do anyway for free? And, if someone wanted to do something like this and not get called out on it, are they going to post a fucking Craigslist ad? Does that make any sense at all to you? Did you even stop to think whether or not it makes sense, or did you just believe it because it sounds like something that you want to be true?
Here's another question - did you respond to any of those ads? Did you call any of those phone numbers? No? You just think it's true though, don't you?
You're a perfect example of the kind of person who gets taken in by this stuff and just assumes that it's true. Anyone can post an ad on Craigslist, you don't even need an account to do it. Anyone can post any contact information, the only thing you need is a working email address. Maybe try calling some of those numbers on those ads and see who they connect to, if anyone, and if you talk to someone ask them if they posted those ads.
Let me guess your response to that: I called one of those numbers, and it connected to a Planned Parenthood! The people there told me that this was a hoax and that they did not post the ad! Therefore, I know that they are lying and that they actually did post the ad!
Go ahead, let the confirmation bias flow through you.
"Hey man, I'm going to head down to the mailbox and check the mail."
"I will pay you $20 if you go check the mail."
Yeah, pay somebody for something that they're going to do for free anyway. This makes perfect sense. Way to use the critical thinking part of your brain there.
Re:Mainstream media DOES invent news (Score:4, Insightful)
Goebbels' propaganda machine was ultimately disbelieved by the German people based on the postwar US Strategic Bombing Survey's result. The majority of Germans had realized the war was lost shortly after Stalingrad, even though bombing and privation had not started to bite. People see right through the lying. A similar result here - people just don't believe the shit and aren't going to start believing it again without a wholesale teardown of the whole edifice and rebuilding, with a focus on ethics.
Hindsight Bias Effect [wikipedia.org]
Re:Mainstream media DOES invent news (Score:5, Informative)
Here are a couple examples. See if you can spot the trends.
Firefighter Jailed & Suspended By Atheist Mayor For Praying At Scene of Fire [newsexaminer.net]
Sounds plausible, right? I'm outraged! Christianity is under attack! I need to share this on Facebook immediately! Here's a quote:
According to DeQuincy city attorney Paul Horner, Jones made four previous attempts to address the issue personally with Edwards, but Edwards became more defiant with each meeting.
94-Year-Old Grandma Kills 'Knockout Game' Thug [newsexaminer.net]
The poor woman! She got attacked! If she didn't have her gun, those black youths probably would have killed her! Here's a quote:
St. Louis Police Detective Paul Horner told CNN the ‘Knockout Game’ is extremely dangerous and needs to stop before more people get killed. "How many more of our young African American youths will have to die before it clicks in their tiny little brains not to do this stupid sh*t anymore?"
Obama Signs Executive Order Which Bans The Sale Of Assault Weapons [newsexaminer.net]
What?! Just read that article about that poor 94 year old woman, we need more guns! This is an outrage! People have to hear about this! Here's a quote:
Washington political analyst, 37-year-old Paul Horner, who has been at The Coronado Healthcare Center since early last month after getting into a severe accident in Rocky Point, told ABC News what led up to this assault gun ban on both sides of the party.
Obama To Honor Muslim Brotherhood Leader With Statue On White House Lawn [newsexaminer.net]
That goddamn Kenyan needs to go back to Kenya! All of my relatives need to hear about this! Here's a quote:
White House spokesman Paul Horner ended the press conference by giving details to reporters about the controversial statue.
“The statue of Azhar Azeez will be displayed on the East side of the White House lawn,” Horner said. “The marble statue will stand approximately 21 feet tall, weigh a little more than a 100 tons and is currently being built by world famous artist Tom Downey from England. The statue is expected to be completed in the next 6 months with a grand unveiling celebration for all to see. This is a great day for Muslims all over the world.”
Donald Trump Introduces New Muslim/Refugee Badges [newsexaminer.net]
It's about goddamn time! Let's make it great again! Here's a quote:
“The German government’s policy of forcing Jews to wear identifying badges was but one of many psychological tactics aimed at isolating and dehumanizing the Jews of Europe, directly marking them as being different and inferior to everyone else,” Paul Horner of the Holocaust Center said.
Mom Calls 911 On Masturbating Teenage Son; Boy Arrested, Charged With New ‘Self-Rape’ Alabama State Law [newsexaminer.net]
Share to everyone! Here's a quote:
An Alabama boy is behind bars tonight after his mother called 9-1-1 when she found her son in his room, watching pornography and masturbating. Montgomery Police were quick to respond, arresting 15-year-old Paul Horner, who attends Jefferson Davis High School.
That goddamn Paul Horner gets around, doesn't he?
Anyway, the guy who runs that site, Paul Horner, appreciates all of the page views and ad clicks on his articles baiting right-w
Re: (Score:2)
But conspiracy theories from Breitbart are cool?
I'm very confused and you seem like a nice young man. Can you please help me?
Re:Mainstream media DOES invent news (Score:5, Insightful)
Jayson Blair was exposed by his own newspaper (New York Times) in a 7000-word article and drummed out of the business. Your perceived "bias" or not, there is a long history of traditional journalists policing each other.
You ever hear of a fake news site publishing a retraction or correction? You ever hear Bret Baier retract his pre-election story about how "indictments are on the way for Hillary"? Show me the mechanism by which fake news holds themselves accountable and we can take your suggested equivalency as something other than rank stupidity.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, the mainstream media is not as bad as the fake news. It's not perfect, but the idea that it is as bad as people who just willfully invent rumors out of thin air and disseminate them as truth is absurd. It's a classic fallacy of the false equivalency.
Like... CNN, "The mistrusted name in news!" ;)
Re:Precisely (Score:5, Insightful)
In the last week...
NYT reported Trump poisoned Megyn Kelly and got debate questions before the debate. Their source, Mrs. Kelly, said neither was true. Looks like they made it up completely.
A guy making "fake news" on Facebook said he made up a story about protestors at Trump rallies were being paid by Clinton. Project Veritas has a video proving this is actually true, specifically Chicago and Arizona rallies disturbed by a woman bragging about it and on the Clinton campaign payroll.
So we have a "mainstream" news making up false stories, debunked by asking their claimed source, and a fake news story that is proven true with video evidence and public FEC records.
The mainstream media is not as bad as fake news, it is far worse. Provably so.
Re:Precisely (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd disagree, a semi-valid but highly biased "real" news outlet is much more dangerous, because people are more likely to trust it.
Re:Precisely (Score:5, Informative)
No? The mainstream media is not as bad as fake news? [imgur.com]
You should take a bit more of a look. Start plugging those names into wikileaks clinton email and DNC databases. You're in for a wild ride son.
Re:Precisely (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, that's what I'm stating. Stories may have been wrong in part, but the main news outlets weren't inventing news.
Re: (Score:2)
I still don't know if a thousand little lies is worse than a big lie.
At least the big lie is easier to falsify.
Re:Precisely (Score:5, Insightful)
This was one of the problems this election season: How do you falsify a lie?
Suppose Breitbart ran a story with the title "Obama calls off Trump's transition, Declares self Emperor." Now you and I might know that this is complete bull, but how do you prove it to someone who thinks it might be true? Show them the Pants On Fire rating on Politifact? "That's obviously a liberal site." Show them the New York Times or Washington Post debunking? "I don't trust the mainstream media." Show them a report on FOX News? "FOX used to be good but it's gotten taken over by liberals." (Yes, there are a group of people who think FOX News is too liberal!)
When people decide they're only going to trust news from sources that we know make up stories (and repeat stories from similar sites), how do you prove anything to be a lie?
Re:Precisely (Score:5, Informative)
There were several reporters on Diane Rehm's show this morning talking about that. One of them mentioned that his efforts to correct articles that were obviously wrong, were in fact proof to the people who believed the article that he was biased and lying himself. So there you go, the effort to try to point out that an article is fake is met by its believers with a belief that you are the one lying. They'll go on believing the fake news, but now they also think you're a liar also.
Re: (Score:2)
This!
Everyone clearly knows that willful ignorance leads to better government elections.
Re: (Score:2)
At least the big lie is easier to falsify.
Funny, you should say that Hitler and Goebbels thought the big lie was harder to falsify. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. However, to use examples from the Donald Trump campaign, when confronted with clear cut evidence that something he said was factually incorrect, The Don would usually double down; never admit that his original statement was mistaken, or exaggerated, or simply wrong. And his supporters would take his side, and continue not only spreading a fact that was demonstrably not true, but wholeheartedly believing it themselves.
And so the American populace ends up
Re: (Score:3)
Oh yes! So true!
It's not like the MSM invents news at all...
Hey What's this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
or this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Nothing to see here right?
CNN is an "official" source so it must not be fake....
Re: (Score:2)
CNN is an "official" source so it must not be fake....
You just need to understand the decision-tree involved.
Q: Does this news impact Progressives/liberals/Democrats positively and/or Conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians negatively?
A: Authentic news!
Q: Does it impact Progressives/liberals/Democrats negatively and/or Conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians positively?
A: Totally fake bullshit, likely Russian propaganda!
See? Easy-peasy!
Strat
Nice try (Score:2)
Re:Precisely (Score:5, Insightful)
They made them up out of thin air.
No, they didn't. They were provided the documents and fell way short on properly vetting them. This was exposed by other mainstream media outlets, and resulted in a huge internal investigation. It is all very well documented [wikipedia.org].
Now, if one of these fake news sites was called out for, I dunno, lying that Trump won the popular vote, what do you think they would do... seriously try to improve their processes by finding out what went wrong, or try to sell you some viagra?
Claiming that the fourth estate is "corrupt to the core" and suggesting we believe random people posting click-bait online instead puts you squarely in the "utter lunatic" camp in my book.
Re: (Score:2)
What's more likely
It's much more likely that they screwed up than they were nefarious.
What you are suggesting is that the entire ordeal in that wikipedia article was a giant orchestrated charade done at great expense. I generally don't like to throw Occam's razor around carelessly, but I think it pretty clearly applies here.
Self correcting (Score:5, Interesting)
Just think what CBS' Dan Rather did with the Bush reports years ago. They made them up out of thin air.
Yes, Dan Rather of 60 Minutes did report a story based on documents that were turned out to be fake. And, guess what? A day and a half later, The Washington Post, The New York Times. USA Today and the Associated Press all ran stories disputing the documents. If you're tallking about the mainstream media running fake stories-- how about the mainstream media reporting that fake news was fake. 60 Minutes eventually ran a public retraction of the story, and subsequently fired the people responsible.
This is the mainstream media doing self-correction. That was back in those halcyon days of yesterday when integrity in journalism was actually an ideal that the media tried for, before all the internet media started going with the plan "who cares it it's true? If it gets clicks, run with it!"
Do the fake news sites ever run retractions? Has Breitbart ever retracted anything they've said?
Re:Precisely (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure. They played along with the whole "new batch of emails" claim that probably sunk Clinton's campaign.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The mainstream media is at least as bad as the supposed "fake" news sources.
No it really isn't. The mainstream media is far from perfect, but that does not make it equivalent to the completely fake crap which is much, much further from perfect.
Re: (Score:2)
No it really isn't. The mainstream media is far from perfect, but that does not make it equivalent to the completely fake crap which is much, much further from perfect.
No, the fake crap put out by the MSM is FAR more dangerous, as people will be more likely in general to trust it as opposed to some random article on the interwebs.
What I see happening is the laying of groundwork for the implementation of a US version of "1984"'s "MiniTruth".
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Not all of them, and the real problem is that the stupid and the misinformed are always so much more confident that they know everything.
It's easier this way.... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:It's easier this way.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Hoping for a corrective backlash (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Hoping for a corrective backlash (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Really, so in the wake of Katrina, no one had their firearms unconstitutionally confiscated?
The opposite is true (Score:2)
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
Re:The opposite is true (Score:5, Insightful)
Editorial bias is one thing, blatantly burying a major news story(WikiLeaks) because it doesn't fit the agenda is equal to being "fake news site". Oh sure, they ran a one or two minute piece once, but TRUMP IS A RACIST runs for 38 minutes every night.
There is bias (accidental unintentional) and then there is rigged reporting. Calling it bias is ... cute.
Re: (Score:2)
You can attack anyone by using carefully selected subset "of their own words".
You for instance said "It doesn't matter".
And you said - "it's easier... to lie". :-)
I hope so... but (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Then Obama was a fool for promising something not under his control.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How did all those articles about how Obama is coming to take your guns work out for you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So those were state legislatures passing gun control laws, not Obama passing a federal law to ban all guns.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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"
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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..."
Re: (Score:2)
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
The media is dead (Score:2)
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.
what we gained (Score:2, Troll)
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.
Just another day that ends in "y" (Score:2)
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.
So lemme get this straight, Barack (Score:2)
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.
Re:So lemme get this straight, Barack (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany certainly is.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The real story here..... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:The real story here..... (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
It's odd, isn't it? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's odd, isn't it? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
lots of little or a little lots. (Score:2)
I still don't know which is worse; 1000 little lies or a big lie.
I guess the big lie is easier to falsify?
Re: (Score:2)
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
You get what you pay for (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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.
Solutions (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
How can you be sure we are not ALL full of shit? Simply BUY MORE papers. Become an informed citizen!
More lies, different names, same goals. [wikipedia.org]
That's what I love about our press laws (Score:2)
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.
Maybe... (Score:2)
...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.
Self Preservation Soceity (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand the difference between free speech and slander, yes?
Re: (Score:2)
But just because you don't like the "approved" news you turn around and listen to someone spouting baloney? That's like those idiots that don't want to believe what science showed to be real and instead turns to any quack trying to sell snakeoil, from flat earth to virus-denial.
Being skeptic of what you're told is fine. But turning around and going "I don't want to believe what A tells me, so B must be right even if it's harebrained nonsense" is prime grade bullshit.