Wikipedia Bans Daily Mail As 'Unreliable' Source (theguardian.com) 405
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Wikipedia editors have voted to ban the Daily Mail as a source for the website in all but exceptional circumstances after deeming the news group "generally unreliable." The move is highly unusual for the online encyclopaedia, which rarely puts in place a blanket ban on publications and which still allows links to sources such as Kremlin backed news organization Russia Today, and Fox News, both of which have raised concern among editors. The editors described the arguments for a ban as "centered on the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication." The Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia but does not control its editing processes, said in a statement that volunteer editors on English Wikipedia had discussed the reliability of the Mail since at least early 2015. It said: "Based on the requests for comments section [on the reliable sources noticeboard], volunteer editors on English Wikipedia have come to a consensus that the Daily Mail is 'generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. This means that the Daily Mail will generally not be referenced as a 'reliable source' on English Wikipedia, and volunteer editors are encouraged to change existing citations to the Daily Mail to another source deemed reliable by the community. This is consistent with how Wikipedia editors evaluate and use media outlets in general -- with common sense and caution."
Not undeserved. (Score:5, Informative)
Perfect timing (Score:2, Insightful)
FD:I just posted a link to the Daily Mail in the last /. article.
Re: (Score:2)
The opposite is also true. Blanket approval of sources is just as dangerous as blanket bans. No matter the source it should still be checked. Here is a subtle reason why, what if it is not actually from that source, should you not check that it is from the claimed source and you can do this whilst quickly checking the validity of the content itself. Keep in mind something can be from an approved source but not from that approved source at the same time ie janitor from a university is not the same as a profe
Re:Perfect timing (Score:5, Insightful)
Blanket bans of sources considered poor news sources is a slippery slope, a slippery slope I say!
FD:I just posted a link to the Daily Mail in the last /. article.
And for that you should be ashamed.
Also you should be ashamed for calling this censorship. Its not, it's a private organisation setting their own rules in their own house. You haven't been censored, you've been told that they think the Daily Mail is unreliable and full of falsehoods... which if you've read any decent news source is blindingly obvious.
If the Daily Mail were to accidentally print something true and accurate, they would not be the only news source to do so. So in that regard, absolutely nothing is being hidden from you.
Wikipedia wants to be considered a reliable reference site, this means they need to be mindful of their sources. The DM is known for deliberately printing lies, slander and well, crap. 90% of their stories are celebrity trash that would make E! blush, the other 9.99999999999999% are exaggerations or outright fabrications to suit the homophobic and racist tendencies of the owner.
I consider the Daily Mail to be an unreliable and often, utterly incorrect source of information. I'll happily and openly state that I think anyone using it as a reference source is a complete Muppet who struggles to know which end of a spoon to hold... but I wont stop you from reading it, I'll just point out you're an idiot for doing so. That isn't censorship, if you're offended by it, thats your problem.
Re:Not undeserved. (Score:5, Informative)
It's worse than that. The Sun is a comic for semi-literate grown-ups, but the Daily Mail is the newspaper equivellent of Nineteen Eighty Four's two minutes hate. The whole thing is designed as a mixture of rage inducing fabrications and milt titillation. Even the latter is irresponsible and damaging, featuring 14 year olds in bikinis and an endless stream of articles on how 5 year old celebrity children dress.
This is the newspaper that call senior judges "enemies of the people" for upholding the law and requiring a vote in parliament on triggering Article 50 (the start of Brexit). In some ways it is even worse than Fox News. Like Brietbart they try to have an air of respectability, and unlike Brietbart their long history and wide readership seems to convey it.
Wait.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait... it has been used as a source EVER?! This is shocking news to me.
CNN? (Score:2, Insightful)
CNN are just as bad as Fox News, each of them just have their own selective version of the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference of reporting truth with bias (CNN) and outright bullshit (Fox News)
The "outright bullshit" would be the Daily Mail.
Fox is somewhere in between. While CNN lets its bias show, the Fox has a very deliberate bias, and pushes its agenda. But outside the opinion pieces, they to seem to try and avoid outright bullshit. But Daily Mail just doesn't care.
Re: (Score:2)
CNN is 10x worse than fox news. CNN will continue to push a story even when multiple other news papers call them out as being wrong, or conflicting with their own reporting.
Anderson Cooper equates CNN to the national equirer https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Anderson keeps repeating that they didn't report something when they did. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
The people at CNN don't seem to even want to watch CNN. The CNN lies videos youtube have many were one reporter doesn't know another CNN reporter a
More information wouldn't hurt... (Score:3)
...which rarely puts in place a blanket ban on publications and which still allows links to sources such as Kremlin backed news organization Russia Today, and Fox News, both of which have raised concern among editors.
Can one tell me where Russia Today has been wrong? I mean categorically wrong? I watch and listen to them regularly. They have been on the point in as far as I am concerned. I'd like to see some examples.
Anchor admits to lies on RT (Score:4, Insightful)
Here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
I don't recognise the website, but I leave you to investigate
http://www.stopfake.org/en/rus... [stopfake.org]
Not RT accused directly but
http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]
A reminder about the lies at the time of the invasion of the Crimea
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/maga... [bbc.co.uk]
And finally
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10... [nytimes.com]
Is that your best? I counter... (Score:3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:Anchor admits to lies on RT (Score:5, Insightful)
That's quite interesting, though the anchor did not reveal anything I did not already suspect. With RT you know what you get - news with an extra helping of bias, just like everyone else. It's actually easier to see through RT's because the bias is focused on Russian interests, but everyone does it. Fox's is deeply conservative, CNN's is deeply liberal, and BBC is close to neutral but still very western-slanted. The best approach is to read / watch news from different sources and form opinions then, especially while keeping in mind the biases of each one. For internet news I cycle through CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, BBC, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Straits Times, Asahi Shimbun, and yes RT.
My complaint is the way the original article threw "Kremlin backed" out there, as if that were unusual. BBC is backed by the British and Al Jazeera is backed by Qatar. Yet the same people who decry RT espouse these two as bastions of truth. While I do trust BBC more than the average US-based news site and certainly over RT and Al J, I recognize that is an opinion shaped by being Western rather than some magical knowledge. Both sides of US media bought the "we have proof Saddam has WMDs!!" rhetoric hook line and sinker for years. Either they suck at their job or pressure was put on to avoid digging into that.
Re: (Score:3)
CNN is USA State Propaganda (Democrat Bent)
FOX News is USA State Propaganda (Republican Bent)
Re: (Score:3)
Did the 30 anchors that lied for Hillary during the election resign? Nope they wagged the dog and got everyone to believe it was nothing but russian hacking.
https://theintercept.com/2016/... [theintercept.com]
Re: (Score:3)
So basically, the bunch of western news who have very different published statements regarding Crimea and Syria. Both of which I can tell you for a fact, that Western news media outlets have pretty much lied their asses off regarding aspects. And that they have completely covered up America's roles in both debacles.
Daily Mail = Modern day Der Stürmer (Score:2)
Lol Fox and RT but no CNN? (Score:2, Insightful)
Decades of UK media is better for everyone (Score:2)
Recall the D-notice affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and how hard UK publications had to work to get news out to the public?
The publication of stories about Real IRA phone intercepts, news like
German spies 'can't be trusted': Relations between the UK and Berlin intelligence chiefs hit after comments by London (16 December 2016)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
All the work the paper did on the UK MP's expen
Well then.... (Score:2)
I will continue to support my Children's schools choice that Wikipedia is not an acceptable reference source.
Apropos ad (Score:2)
This page had an ad for TMZ.
Daily Mail (Score:2)
Urge Caution (Score:2)
Breaking (Score:2)
Re:Censorship. (Score:5, Informative)
The Daily Mail actually has some very competent, very tenacious, not to mention ruthless, investigative journalists. It's not uncommon for them to break stories of real consequence.
The editorial spin that gets put on them, that's another matter. And their choice of subject matter is often open to question. But the journalism itself is some of the best you'll find, and I find it a sad comment on the state of Wikipedia that its politburo doesn't recognise that.
Re: (Score:2)
Der Guardian is on par with the Daily Mail in veracity.
Re:Censorship. (Score:5, Funny)
The Daily Mail is about as reliable as Wikipedia is these days.
To be fair you're not allowed to cite Wikipedia as a source in Wikipedia articles either. ;-)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Daily Mail is garbage - but so is The Guardian.
The difference is that Wikipedia has been taken over by the social justice loons who agree with The Guardian.
Wrap it up. Wikipedia really is done.
Re:Censorship. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Censorship. (Score:5, Informative)
Oh come on. Have you even looked at the Daily Mail? It's frequently sensationalistic in its coverage to the point where some of its headlines and stories more resemble The National Enquirer than a serious newspaper. Often times I don't think it even takes itself that seriously. The headlines are often extremely hyperbolic.
Quite frankly, I can't imagine anyone taking the Mail that seriously. PApers like the Guardian and Telegraph have their flaws, and their obvious ideological leanings that at times leak on to the front page, but the Daily mail is just one big absurd mess, a sort of TMZ with news stories.
Re: (Score:2)
CNN is just as bad as all the rest of the alphabet channels. All they care about is ratings, and the dollar that comes with ratings.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sorry, anyone who thinks the Mail is somehow in the same league is the NYT or Washington Post doesn't strike me as someone actually interested in reliability. Journalism isn't perfect but the Mail doesn't even try.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And you believe the NYT or WaPo even tries? I mean, they used to once, and the Mail never did, but these days? They were open and explicit in 2016 that winning the election was ore important than truth.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Censorship. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Daily Mail is the exactly opposite of what you describe. A typical story starts with several paragraphs of reaction and outrage, before right at the end on page 7 mentioning the facts.
Here's a classic example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/hea... [dailymail.co.uk]
Note how even in the byline they manage to sneak a lie in (the straight banana law was debunked when it first surfaced in the 90s). If you can wade through all the ranting you will find a perfectly sensible, rational explanation for the ruling.
That's why the Daily Fail has been banned. It's not a serious source of news, it's a source of outrage and vitriol. Almost entirely fact free, virtually pure opinion (so long as it's the opinion of people who are angry, or who you should be angry about not being angry).
Re:Censorship. (Score:4, Insightful)
The Daily Mail is the exactly opposite of what you describe. A typical story starts with several paragraphs of reaction and outrage, before right at the end on page 7 mentioning the facts.
I came here to post this. This is exactly my experience with Daily Mail. The articles (and I am using the word loosely) start with pure distilled lying shit, and IF you happen to read the end, there is (if they lied enough) their 'get out of jail' card where they briefly state what actually happened (quite contrary to what they wrote above), so they can't be sued.
Re: (Score:2)
The awful thing is that people believe that stuff, and make irreversible, hugely important decisions based on it.
There was a woman on Question Time last week. For those not in the UK, Question Time is a BBC programme where the public can ask a panel of politicians and invited guests questions. She stated that she was going to vote remain, but the day before the vote was in the supermarket and saw some bananas, which reminded her of the straight bananas lie and caused her to change her mind.
We are all victim
Re:Censorship. (Score:4, Insightful)
The writing is better but the content is not. Don't confuse the two. Good language skills are just as helpful for convincing lies as they are for truth telling.
Re: Censorship. (Score:2)
You do realize all it takes to be "up for" a Pulitzer is pay the $50 entry fee.
As with the Nobel's, which are a *little* harder to get nominated for, the only thing that matters is winning. Being considered says nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
As with the Nobel's, which are a *little* harder to get nominated for, the only thing that matters is winning. Being considered says nothing.
In 1939, Adolf Hitler was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. He didn't win.
President Obama (Score:3)
I do believe President Obama has claim to being the Nobel Peace prize recipient who bombed and killed the most people.
Re: (Score:3)
I do believe President Obama has claim to being the Nobel Peace prize recipient who bombed and killed the most people.
Kissinger had far bloodier hands than Obama. Menachem Begin may be the recipient who killed the most directly, rather than by giving orders. He was personally involved in the murder of more than 90 people, most of whom were British.
Re: Censorship. (Score:2)
The Daily Mail is at the same level as BuzzFeed. Neither should be admissible as a source.
Re: Censorship. (Score:3)
You do realize all it takes to be "up for" a Pulitzer is pay the $50 entry fee.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is obvious that enough Americans agreed with Trump or at least disagreed with Hillary. If that were not the case, he would not be in the White House today.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He asked us, "What do you have to lose?" Well, he has provided an answer. He has attacked the following constitutionally protected groups:
1) The Press (all of them).
2) Judges (all of them. He just called them all political).
3) Lawmakers (Yah, it was pretty much everyone versus trump the last election. Had he stuck to truth I might have had some sympathy here.)
4) disabled/women/religions.
The only attacks I've seen are the Berkeley protestors beating people with clubs. What I've seen from Trump are mean tweets. And no one is immune to criticism just because they're a member of any of those groups. There are fuckups in all walks of life (especially politicians)
And did a lefty just tell me that it's bad to criticize a religion? Really? I'm not even Christian, but after watching 40 years of non-stop, relentless criticism of Christians, Christianity, Christian values, and anything remotely
Re: (Score:3)
Nice attempt at spin. I don't condone any violence, but Trump thinks he's King and you should be worried. His communication isn't "mean tweets", it's a display of unimaginable ignorance, stupidity, and lack of decency. What, just yesterday he used the office of POTUS to slam Nordstrom because they dropped her daughter's clothing line or something. Ridiculous behaviour.
President Camacho was better suited for the office than Trump - at least he showed some respect.
Re: (Score:3)
My sig says it all. America was built as a system to limit the power of a ruler you don't like. Seems like we've weakened those constraints in the past century. Perhaps a smaller, less power central government would prevent this sort of thing from ever being an issue? That was, after all, the founding principle of this nation.
Re:Censorship. (Score:5, Informative)
This is fake news. There was a completely unsubstantiated claim by an NY Times reporter, which seems like a bizarre false flag op:
That's not a bizarre false flag op, that's cognitive dissonance on your part.
So at best we have a rumour
No, an eyewitness account from a reporter that matches other violence at the event that's been caught on film, such as this flag pole attack [twitter.com], or this woman being pepper sprayed [youtube.com] while giving an interview, or this college Republican being attacked [cbslocal.com] wearing a suit and Trump hat the morning after.
based on a story that clearly makes no sense (why would an anti-hate, anti-discrimination protester identify as Syrian as a Nazi?)
Probably because the left has been throwing around the term "Nazi" like it was confetti, and he was wearing a suit, as the reporter mentioned, something you'd associate with the right, establishment, and conservatism at a lefty protest where hate-filled thugs are violently attacking people and property to shut down another person's free speech. Also, maybe he was wearing a Trump hat that was knocked off before the reporter saw the attack.
If anything it suggests that the protest was sabotaged by Milo supporters.
You truly have your head up your ass. And I suppose the 200+ people [gotnews.com] arrested and charged as part of a gang committing violence during Trump's inauguration were Trump supporters?
What you don't want to admit is that the left has become the party of violence, openly condoning it in many cases.
This somehow became a factual report when repeated on alt-right websites. And you either didn't bother to investigate it, or didn't want to, or are too incompetent to make a sensible judgement.
*snort* Yes, because you've done such a good job investigating it yourself with your baseless claims of false flag attacks and "fake news".
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Censorship. (Score:4, Insightful)
They are, if you actually consider what the standard is: a consensus view among editors that the articles are unreliable and not representing accurate facts.
That doesn't happen lightly - the debate took weeks before the vote, and the vote requirement to actually ban a source is extremely high - you need over 80% of editors to agree. That's some ten-thousand people from around the world, with different biases, ideas, philosophies and beliefs - and you need to get 80% of them to agree before any publication can be banned. It requires a CONSENSUS view - not just a majority view.
The D.M. ban came after years and years of having article based on DM sources that had to be rewritten, replaced and even deleted entirely as they turned out to be pure fabrications. That's a crapload of extra work for editors - who are, remember, volunteers.
It is not censorship - they can't stop anybody reading the dailymail, but they ahve every right to decide that the frequency with which dailymail reports force them to have to do extra work due to blatantly false claims makes it not worth the effort of allowing as a source, since after all, the mission of the organisation is dependent on reliable sources.
There are different ideas on how an encyclopaedia should strive for accuracy. The traditional view is by hiring a host of experts, one on every topic you have an entry on, and have them write the topics for you. Then edit and prettify and have them fact-check the result. This is how things like Encyclopaedia Britanica for example is done.
That, however, is not viable for a crowd-sourced one... so how do you fact check ? They had to find a new way, that way is to demand reliable, outside, expert sources that agree with the statements of fact made on the pages. This reduces the workload from an unmangeable "find a verified expert on every topic and resolve disputes whenever a topic has two experts who don't agree" to a much more manageable "select which sources we trust". A process which, in another contradiction of typical encyclopaedic standards actually is based on "benefit of the doubt" - any published source starts out as "acceptable". Even your personal blog can be a source - though if you fail fact-checking (consistently) you will eventually cease to be one. If it can be backed up by multiple sources this is deemed even better. A scientists' blog about his current research is a fantastic thing to have as a source - it means wikipedia can have up to date information (far moreso than the competition), but having a link to the published paper when it comes out is even more important - because that will include the corrections made over the course of the research and not reflected in the earlier running-commentary posts.
Re:Censorship. (Score:4, Insightful)
Other media outlets make mistakes, and they are quickly found and covered by other outlets. The Daily Mail rarely prints anything that is accurate, because it's editorial goal is to mislead. The entire point of the thing is to make you angry, not to inform.
It's one thing to try and occasionally fail to deliver news, it's another to consciously try to distort news for profit and to influence the government.
Re: (Score:2)
maybe its a start.
Re:Censorship. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Censorship. (Score:5, Funny)
There's a delightful exchange from Yes Minister that, while reflecting the major British papers as they were in the late 70s and early 80s, is still relatively true today:
Re:Censorship. (Score:4, Funny)
There's a delightful exchange from Yes Minister that, while reflecting the major British papers as they were in the late 70s and early 80s, is still relatively true today:
I'm going through the Netflix DVD's of this right now.
I've watched it in it's entirety once before.
I've never seen more brilliantly written political satire!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In a similar vein, the science journalist Peter Hadfield (aka Potholer54) has a hilarious quote about this: "I know a lot of editors at the Mail, and the nugget of science they understand is so small it could be drowned in their lunchtime gins & tonics."
The quote is from Hadfield's excellent video [youtube.com] debunking myths about climate change. (This video is just one of a series [youtube.com] on the subject, which is very much worth the time.)
Re:Censorship. (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is that RT reporting is often selective, biased, opinionated - painting facts in certain light, keeping silent about some facts and emphasizing others thus painting incomplete image and with misleading implications. The facts they present are just facts though, even if they may mislead you into drawing wrong conclusions through clever wording. If you're careful though, and use multiple sources, confronting them, you are able to extract objective truth; take what the article *says*, not what it *implies* and you're good. If RT says "Kremlin announced plans of X..." you're not getting information that X is or will be true, but you're getting an absolutely true, objective information that announcement of plans of X by Kremlin occurred - regardless of what opinion the article expresses about X.
Meanwhile, Daily Mail fabricates facts. "Russia begins X!" - Nope. It does not. The announcement doesn't make it a fact. The chance Kremlin follows up with actual actions is indeterminate, the time scale was not announced, and there's not even a trace of X in Russia as of now. The news is fake.
Biased reporting is still a valid source, even if you need to proceed with caution because the wording is not conductive to impartial conclusions. Fake reporting is not a valid source, period. The only actual fact we can draw from a link to such an article was that Daily Mail announced that Russia begins X.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/maga... [bbc.co.uk]
And yes, I am aware of the irony of citing a news source.
Re:Censorship. (Score:4, Insightful)
Articles are usually a combination of facts and narrative, some opinion or agenda.
As long as facts check out, that's okay for Wikipedia source. The narrative does get in the way, reducing value of the source, but doesn't invalidate the facts. The source confirms article author didn't make it up, but it's the wikipedia article that must present the facts impartially, stripping the narrative and opinions. If it manages to do it, all is well.
The problem begins when facts are fabricated. This is where Wikipedia must draw a line.
Re:Pot / kettle (Score:5, Funny)
And Wikipedia is a reliable source?
Only when compared against the Daily Mail.
Re:Pot / kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I think people, especially people who I imagine populate wiki these days, forget that relative accuracy is important. There are zero information sources of any decent length which can be said to be absolutely true. Wiki was shown at one point to be as accurate as the alternative. [cnet.com] It's all good to be skeptical of wiki, but let's not pretend God Himself edits Britannica print version.
Re: Pot / kettle (Score:2)
You can't use a thing as a source for itself.
Source: Read my post again.
No, encyclopedias list and summarize sources (Score:2)
Throughout each Wikipedia article, you'll see references to sources, with the full information about each source listed at the bottom of the article. That's because Wikipedia isn't (supposed to be) the source of any information, it's supposed to be a list of sources, summarized.
As someone else pointed out, Wikipedia rules do not allow citing another Wikipedia article as a source, because encyclopedias are not considered a reliable source, no.
Encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, ARE good first place to look
Re: (Score:2)
hroughout each Wikipedia article, you'll see references to sources, with the full information about each source listed at the bottom of the article
The problem is their definition of a source. Blog posts are fine. Articles which are opinion, which reference blog posts are fine. Even opinion and news articles which reference blog posts which are slanderous are fine. It's not the "Wikipedia to be a source for information" it's that wikipedia uses sources to paint narratives, based on what an editor feels is true. And if you happen to disprove what the editor wrote? Well you're likely to be banned for your trouble.
As it stands now? Wikipedia is a g
Re: (Score:2)
> definition of a source. Blog posts are fine.
Policy is that blog posts, and other web sites run by a single individual (where authors are not acountable to editors) are "generally not acceptable":
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
> Articles which are opinion, which reference blog posts are fine.
Opinion articles, including those published by AP, are not acceptable sources of fact.
"Unreliable sources" *may* be cited about *themselves* - you can write "Rush Limbaugh wrote that Pelosi is smarter
Re: (Score:2)
And Wikipedia is a reliable source?
The articles do tend to have external references, so it is relatively easy to check the facts. That is, in my view, the only way to even attempt to be realiable. The sad fact is that even if you have a brilliant understanding of things and every intention of reporting truthfully, you may still get it wrong; that is why all scientific articles are crammed with citations and references - they want their readers to take part in the responsibility by checking everything.
Re: (Score:2)
The summary mentions Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?
Neither does the article.
The move is highly unusual for the online encyclopaedia, which rarely puts in place a blanket ban on publications and which still allows links to sources such as Kremlin backed news organisation Russia Today, and Fox News, both of which have raised concern among editors.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> CNN doesn't even come close to the same level of alternate.
They told us it was 'illegal' to read Wikileaks, which revealed that they leaked debate questions. They've interviewed their own cameraman. They had fake interviews where they pretended to be places they weren't.
Half of what I remember Fox faking was the Iraq war nonsense laundering phony "evidence" through anonymous administration officials and such and you can see WaPo or the NYT doing the same crap these days. Some of us aren't dumb enoug
Re:Mention Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN? (Score:4, Informative)
Interesting example of how a bit of fake news and a willingness to believe any old shit that confirms you view that the mainstream media is unreliable.
For example, this claim that CNN interviewed their own cameraman. It originated from Stormfront. When you check the Stormfront story, it actually gives away the deception. The guy is a professional cameraman, he has done some kind of contract work with a CNN reporter once. That doesn't make him a "CNN cameraman" or suggest any kind of conflict of interest with regards to the interview. In fact, it actually lends credibility to what the guy is saying, because the claim that he had been to Rwanda was somewhat extraordinary and is now corroborated.
This is typical of the extremely simplistic take on journalism ethics that also affected Gamergate. People knowing each other is not a conflict of interest. In fact, it's how journalism works, because people are more willing to speak openly and at length with people they know. But the purpose here is not to check for ethical problems, it's to throw shit at CNN.
This whole sentence is a perfect example of how it works:
They told us it was 'illegal' to read Wikileaks, which revealed that they leaked debate questions. They've interviewed their own cameraman. They had fake interviews where they pretended to be places they weren't.
Genuine mistake, since corrected. Fake news story based on twisting some facts. Outright falsehood. Start with something true, move on to a partial and dependable lie, and then end up something vague and general to poison the reader's mind. Textbook stuff.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
CNN fired all their investigative reporters years ago They're the media arm of the Democratic party, and are quite content being so.
Re: (Score:3)
Facts obtained from Faux news no doubt!
Did you know - it's mathematically possible for both CNN and Fox to be full of shit? No, really, it's true! Never mistake confirmation bias for accuracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The summary mentions Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN?
Russian Toady and Faux News? CNN doesn't even come close to the same level of alternate.
It is well known that Russia Today is a mouthpiece for the Homicidal Russian regime. Fox news doesn't even come close to that level of depravity, though as everybody knows, hemlines and cleavage matter more in that forum than balanced reporting. CNN is a veritable bastion of virtue by comparison, though to be honest I do not waste my time with it. What really disgusts me are the trumpist shitmodders who camp on Slashdot now. Surely they are outnumbered by real people.
Why do I get the feeling that a nest of Russians working for Trump is attacking Slashdot? Or is it Trumpists working for Russia?
Re: (Score:2)
Rational wiki as a source? You'd have been better off directly posting a link to media matters or democratic underground.
Re: (Score:2)
Good god.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The left have always been as partial to propaganda as the right but there is this curious situation at the moment where the right insist that facts are no longer acceptable and only right wing propaganda is "free speech". Frankly they can fuck off, along with that scumbag of an excuse for a human being Kellyanne Conway.
The Daily Mail is composed mainly of hate speech and the sex lives of celebrities, it only carries news where it supports general hatred or sex. It may or may not be worth pointing out that a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
...that we should ban Trump's statements since they are typically at least as fabricated as the Daily Mail?
As a reference of factual information, yes. As proof that he made a claim, no.
Re: (Score:2)
> Or the bowling green massacre farce?
There was no massacre, that much was indeed wrong. However, this is what did happen in Bowling Green, KY:
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And fake news BBC, is listing all the articles on all the terror attacks Trump says they didn't report.
I (foolishly) expect more from this place, but how the fuck can anyone with a triple-digit IQ not see how hard Trump played them right there.
Trump: "Hmm, lots of controversy happening about my anti-terror efforts. Y'know what would be nice right now? A buttload of media coverage of terrorist attacks. Good thing I have the media wrapped around my finger."
@realDonaldTrump: "Look at all these terror attacks that the media never reported on! Sad! #fakenews #cnnsucks #dts #MAGA #hashtag."
MSM: LIAR REEEEEEE
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The federalist? Is it on your list?
I went through the first three in the list before I gave up. What was linked to did not match the conclusion the author was making.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Dude, that's a hardcore conservative website
Sure it's hardcore conservative. What the hell is your point ?
95%+ of CNNs political donations go Democrat. For most people that would make them Hardcore Lefty.
Do you consider that an indictment of their service ?
Half the stories on that page are 'debunking' TMZ
If by half you mean 1/16 then yes.
Now lets look at the point of the story which is these get started then don't go away
Taking your example "TMZ Trump renames black history month"
googling
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
We see ABC news repeating the fake story
We see Salon repeating the fake story
The
Re: (Score:3)
[Wikipedia] has a proven track record of demonstrably false articles messed up by random people.
The Mail has a similar track record intentionally created by a handful of deliberately chosen people and it's on paper which means, for reasons I don't understand, makes it more credible for most people.
Guess which one I think is worse.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bias is one thing, inventing facts is another.
Half-Truths a Bigger Problem [Re:Whack both sides] (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure spinning is less powerful "lying" than outright invention (fabrication). In fact, spinning is arguably worse than outright invention because spun facts often have an element of truth to them, making them harder to debunk or dismiss. And you cannot outright dismiss the spinning source because they may not technically be lying.
Propaganda seems to last longer and goes further if it's based on partial truths.
For example, a common propaganda trick is to interview many members of the other side's group (such as at conventions or protests), edit out the normal interviews and play only the "stupid" interviews on TV. The cherry-picking makes the group members seem like idiots.
It's not outright made-up because they are real answers, but they have been filtered to present the entire group in a bad light: it's essentially a statistical trick of only showing the bad samples as if they are representative (random).
Compare that with hiring actors to act like the other side's group and say stupid things on camera. If the producers are caught, they are outright discredited for fabrication. The first approach involves no fabrication and the evidence can be deleted or hidden, such as deleting the "normal" interviews. If investigators cannot find the (excluded) normal interviews, they have no evidence of manipulation to present to the world.
The first approach (filtering) is almost just as powerful as outright fabrication, YET is not fabrication: it's all real, and the filtering trick can be buried.
Re: (Score:3)
Still, from the point of view of a fact-collecting encyclopedia, it can be counted on as a reliable source of facts. Just not neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They retracted that article. Rolling Stone is so biased as to be useless as a news source anyway. It's also a niche magazine targeting pop music enthusiasts. But on facts, they are probably still reasonable most of the time.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would Rolling Stone be out? It depends on the article. For a Wikipedia article about Tom Petty, Rolling Stone seems like a reasonable resource for factual information. If the topic is campus rape, there are probably better resources and if the only source is Rolling Stone, that should raise alarm bells.