Scientists Prove That Truth is No Match For Fiction on Twitter (theguardian.com) 194
Researchers find fake news reaches users up to 20 times faster than factual content -- and real users are more likely to spread it than bots. From a report: "Falsehood flies, and the truth comes limping after it," wrote Jonathan Swift in 1710. Now a group of scientists say they have found evidence Swift was right -- at least when it comes to Twitter. In the paper, published in the journal Science, three MIT researchers describe an analysis of a vast amount of Twitter data: more than 125,000 stories, tweeted more than 4.5 million times in total, all categorised as being true or false by at least one of six independent fact-checking organisations. The findings make for unhappy reading. "Falsehood diffused significantly farther, faster, deeper and more broadly than the truth in all categories of information," they write, "and the effects were more pronounced for false political news than for false news about terrorism, natural disasters, science, urban legends or financial information."
How much further? "Whereas the truth rarely diffused to more than 1,000 people, the top 1% of false-news cascades routinely diffused to between 1,000 and 100,000 people," they write. In other words, true facts don't get retweeted, while too-good-to-be-true claims are viral gold. How much faster? "It took the truth about six times as long as falsehood to reach 1,500 people, and 20 times as long as falsehood to reach a cascade depth of 10" -- meaning that it was retweeted 10 times sequentially (so, for example, B reads A's feed and retweets a tweet, and C then reads B's feed and retweets the same tweet, all the way to J).
How much further? "Whereas the truth rarely diffused to more than 1,000 people, the top 1% of false-news cascades routinely diffused to between 1,000 and 100,000 people," they write. In other words, true facts don't get retweeted, while too-good-to-be-true claims are viral gold. How much faster? "It took the truth about six times as long as falsehood to reach 1,500 people, and 20 times as long as falsehood to reach a cascade depth of 10" -- meaning that it was retweeted 10 times sequentially (so, for example, B reads A's feed and retweets a tweet, and C then reads B's feed and retweets the same tweet, all the way to J).
Obligatory quote (Score:5, Interesting)
A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
Attributed, in various forms, to many (including Churchill, erroneously) but there is no clear indication of who the original author is.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/... [quoteinvestigator.com]
Re: (Score:2)
A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
Sort of a twist on:
"Dog bites man!": Not news . . . Won't spread.
"Man bites dog!": Real news . . . Spreads fast!
The real world and real news are boring and difficult for most folks to deal with.
Fake news is fun and exciting!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is, this isn't an A->B correlation, where the (A) story being false causes (B) story to spread faster. It's a C->A and B correlation, where (C) a story being interesting both (B) spreads faster and (A) is more likely to be false. The story
Re: Obligatory quote (Score:2)
"That which is quoted on the internet must surely be true." - Julius Caesar
"Fact Checkers" used (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: I don't have any actual proof that these sources are trustworthy, so I'll use scare quotes so I don't actually say anything that I can be called on.
Unfortunately, that approach requires the people seeing it to be stupid. We aren't. We're quite familiar with how right wing nutjobs (of the type that increasingly infest Slashdot) work. You've gone right down the list of the sites they hate - because they routinely expose the right's lies and corruption. You can't disprove them on facts, so
Re: (Score:2)
Reality does have a well-known liberal bias. That's why the conservative coalition is primarily composed of Evangelicals, MBAs, racists, and libertarians. Those who live in a fantasy world, those who live and die by the lie, those who reject reality because it's a threat to their egos, and those who reject empirical economic data because it doesn't conform with their utopian fantasy.
Re: (Score:2)
This has always mystified me, and probably always will. How do you work with reality if you don't accept it? When your decisions are poor because they are based on fallacies, how do you hold tight to those fallacies and create new ones to explain away your poor decision, rather than accept them and make better decisions in the future?
It's closely tied to voting against one's self interest. "It's more important that I identify with and support this group, even if it hurts me, than to be an independent agent.
Re: "Fact Checkers" used (Score:2)
Everyone who disagrees with my political opinions is stupid!
Re: (Score:2)
Left wing fascists
The irony is great with this one. Is this troll serious or is he being ironic? We'll never know. I always find posts like these to be such curiosities. I want to believe he's being ironic, but the cynic in me is inclined to believe that there are people out there who will accuse others of being "left wing fascists" in earnest.
Re: "Fact Checkers" used (Score:2)
"Fascist" is just a colloquial term of abuse. He means "authoritarian".
I still think the bogus left/right divide is sixteen tons of steaming bullshit.
Terry Pratchett already knew this (Score:2)
Not really news... (Score:2)
There is real truth to the saying "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on".
Falsehoods have always spread much faster than the truth, it's just in the hyper connected world we live in, instead of taking a day to spread through the world (slightly longer before the age of electronic communications like telephone and telegraph), it takes just milliseconds.
Yes, but then... (Score:2)
The more preposterous (Score:2)
This is a bad result of believing news on Twitter (Score:2)
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016... [foxnews.com]
#pizzagate
Cosmic irony (Score:2)
Before social media, it was mostly contained to a bunch of old senile people protesting with "Keep government hands off my medicare". Today, these cooks have a POTUS and SJWs gave them tools to do it.
Hahahaha.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you're basically aying is you're a mindless product of liberals? A group so evil, they actually created you!
The Lie gets from Bagdad to Constantinople... (Score:2)
... while the Truth looks for its sandals.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're looking for truth in Constantinople, it'll be waiting in Istanbul.
Truthy (Score:4, Interesting)
Scientists don't prove (Score:3)
Scientists observe. Mathematicians prove.
Truth is like poetry (Score:3)
And most people hate poetry.
--The Big Short
You don't say? (Score:2)
I always hear (Score:2)
When I talk to folks about the fake news they get why they enjoy it and read it, I'm told by them, that every story is based on a little truth. They think that they still get the base story, while being amused at how they are reading the news. Over years when this is all one ingests, it breads cynical distaste in life. Normal articles are long and boring, talking to different people face to face is out, and you can now see the truth, which really is that there is a conspiracy in everything. For the m
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, it's tabloid news.
Doomed to fail (Score:2)
fake news reaches users up to 20 times faster than factual content
So how far will this story get?
People who get their news from Twitter.. (Score:2)
.. are mostly idiots in the first place. Twitter is the hall-of-mirrors of echo chambers - lots of twisty little tweets, all the same.
Truth is often boring (Score:2)
While wild conspiracy theories, lies and misinformation, it can be flashy and click-baity. Lies exploit our human nature to find outrageous claims to be fascinating.
The more outlandish the lie is, the more interesting it is. Truth is truth, and often it's just dull and boring. It's a lot harder to make truth flashy and bold.
can this be fixed by using reps of retweeters? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Off the top of my head - if each Twitter user had a "reliability" reputation associated with their account that decreased on false retweeting and increased with "true" retweeting, and their ability to tweet frequency-limited by that reputation score, would that put a check to this problem?
If the assumption is that people who tweet are only reporting "news" then perhaps. Displaying reliability would be a possibility, but who judges that? If for instance, Fox News assigned it once, and CNN another, you would have wildly varying outcomes. On the other hand, displaying the reliability value would likely break Twitter's layout if Trump is in your news feed.
Kidding aside, I like your idea, just not sure how it could be implemented.
No Twitter account here (Score:2)
Just another good reason I'm glad I haven't signed up for a Twitter account (or Facebook either).
Twitter is "lazy journalism" (Score:2)
Truth can be less believable than fiction (Score:2)
"Why shouldn't truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense." Mark Twain
The False News Cascades are lovely this year (Score:2)
the top 1% of false news cascades diffused to between 1000 and 100,000 people
Actual people or Internet Research Agency bots? I believe the Russians have got this deception propagation and contention augmentation stuff down cold .
Re: (Score:2)
Occasionally there are major policy announcements that hit Twitter first. That's news.
Re: (Score:2)
News is something that's fresh, has relevance AND IS TRUE.
Statements released 5 minutes ago and unchecked, are not news. They're just statements until proven true, and only then they become news.
Re: (Score:2)
Statements released 5 minutes ago and unchecked, are not news.
'X' might not be true, but "DJT said 'X" might be news in itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong question.
"What kind of a retard posts news from Twitter?"
If you have a nation full of retards . . . maybe Twitter is the best choice to reach them . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Don't confuse, "get their news" with making it the news.
How many times have you read, "Twitter erupts!" followed by a "story" comprised mostly of Twitter idiots?
Re:But how do the scientists know... (Score:5, Insightful)
... which is truth and which is "fake news"?
People have been arguing that issue for thousands of years.
Putting religion aside for a moment, we generally use these things called "facts" to discern truth from bullshit. Not sure why you feel we're still validating how we do this thousands of years later. We still use the word "liar" too, which also has a pretty clear definition.
Re: (Score:2)
You can lie with facts.
Re: (Score:2)
You can lie with facts.
Yes, and you can also multiply the largest number in the world by zero, and get a similar value.
Facts + bullshit = bullshit. It's that simple, if you want truth to survive and thrive.
Re: But how do the scientists know... (Score:2)
https://archive.org/details/Ho... [archive.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from straight to lies, "alternative facts" are a huge problem. Things that are kinda true but which are misleading or deliberately omit important caveats.
Statistics are often abused as alternative facts, because you can work the numbers to say pretty much anything you like.
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from straight to lies, "alternative facts" are a huge problem. Things that are kinda true but which are misleading or deliberately omit important caveats.
Agreed. That is a growing problem. That said, I see "fake news" on a different level that lends itself more towards the liar-liar end of the bullshit spectrum.
Statistics are often abused as alternative facts, because you can work the numbers to say pretty much anything you like.
Absolutely agree with you here. Statistics is a form of data manipulation. More often than not, they are used to prove one's agenda and not much else. Personally I see the need for more regulation around the use of statistics because of the manipulative power they hold.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who utters the phrase "fake news" instantly loses all credibility to me. If you can't explain what's wrong with it, then there's about a 95% chance you're full of shit.
Tell me what they did wrong, and I'll listen. Loosened the bounds of what's significant? Threw out too many outliers? Let participants self-select with no controls? Sure. That's bullshit.
"FAKE NEWS!!!", "I know you are but what am I?", and "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" are not productive ways to communicate.
Re: But how do the scientists know... (Score:2)
Facts are information which can be objectively evaluated, i. e. , everyone can in principle test them. Fake news are fiction, they are subjective and can either be based on lack of information, wishful thinking, or deliberate lies.
For example, steel tariffs have been issued by Trump is a fact. If they have a positive or negative impact on jobs in the US is speculation. While there are some interpretation which are more likely than others they are not fact but the interpretations + probabilities are.
Re: (Score:2)
... which is truth and which is "fake news"?
People have been arguing that issue for thousands of years.
Not really, no. The only people arguing the issue are people who want to be able to easily dismiss any events, statements, or facts that are in any way negative or damaging to them.
The Huffington Post is (generally) not "fake news", it's merely biased reporting combined with opinion. The Onion is "fake news".
Re: But how do the scientists know... (Score:2)
DPRK News Service is the only REAL news!
https://twitter.com/DPRK_News [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
We sampled all rumor cascades investigated by six independent fact-checking organizations (snopes.com, politifact.com, factcheck.org, truthorfiction.com, hoax-slayer.com, and urbanlegends.about.com) by parsing the title, body, and verdict (true, false, or mixed) of each rumor investigation reported on their websites and automatically collecting the cascades corresponding to those rumors on Twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the issue is that many fact checkers and news orgs are not transparent about their biases and they claim to be objective truth tellers.
Re: (Score:2)
In the post-truth modern era everyone who contradicts your preferred reality is a liar. Everyone else is biased and can safely be dismissed. Only you are objective, the only human able to build a clear and true picture of the world. This grants you moral authority and intellectual superiority.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a snap back to reality in this argument. Are the reading that fake news because it is fun or because they believe it to be true. How many people believe the fake news, what ever the source not because they actually really believe it but simply because they want to believe it. Is it actually convincing all that many about anything what so ever, except of one thing, they are not alone in their beliefs, which is what corporate main stream media used, 'USED' to be able to do, simple can't do it any more,
Re:Fact checkers? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you use anyone as a "fact checker" you are probably hopelessly naive.
So, the only things you know as a fact are things that you have personally proven? Even then, how do you know your facts are facts and not something else that happened by coincidence?
Otherwise, everything you know is sourced from a fact-checker that has validated the data as factual.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, the only things you know as a fact are things that you have personally proven?
You don't? If I am interested in a topic I spend more time and energy to discern the truth from varying sources to come to some conclusion about the topic. If I am not interested then I look at who is saying it and consider what they gain from any specific fact.
Every fact checker has their bias and opinions that is bled into their analysis. Only a fool would listen and believe any source that claims to be objective and bias free or most trusted.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what you said though. You said:
"If you use anyone as a "fact checker" you are probably hopelessly naive."
Now you're giving qualifications to that statement that weren't present the first time.
Of course you'll have some topics that are of personal interest to you. But, your statement was a de facto if you listen to any fact checker you're probably naive. Which is why I said what I said. It's relevant to your first statement, which was a reduction statement. One person cannot possibly know all fac
Re: (Score:2)
Hold the phone. You responded to Archtech ( 159117 ) and I responded to you. I did not say "If you use anyone as a "fact checker" you are probably hopelessly naive." Although, I do agree with it because I did say "Every fact checker has their bias and opinions that is bled into their analysis. Only a fool would listen and believe any source that claims to be objective and bias free or most trusted." That includes self described "fact checkers".
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, yep.. You're right.. That will serve me trying to /. while listening to someone drone on in my ear about some project they want me to be a part of even though the project has 0 need of any of my skillsets and the only reason I'm being asked is so someone else won't have to do the work...
my bad
Re: (Score:2)
So, the only things you know as a fact are things that you have personally proven?
You don't?
No, I don't. For example, it's a fact that the average standard atomic weight of Oxygen on Earth is 15.999. It's a fact and no I haven't verified it personally.
It's also a fact that stratospheric clouds are made of water. I mean I can tell that with mist, sure, but I've never actually managed to get up into a cloud myself and personally verify it is true.
It's basically facile to claim that things you haven't personal
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't. For example, it's a fact that the average standard atomic weight of Oxygen on Earth is 15.999. It's a fact and no I haven't verified it personally.
Isn't the basis of science that you can personally verify any claim? I am sure that many scientists that do care enough about atomic weights have gone through to personally corroborate that fact. I personally, and I assume you as well, don't care enough to spend that time and energy to verify it. The real question is are you willing to spend the time and energy to personally verify it? And to another point, do you care enough or does that fact impact your life to such an extent that the validity of that fac
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the basis of science that you can personally verify any claim?
No, not even slightly. The basis is that the claims are in principle falsifiable, not that you can personally verify them.
I'm never going to be able to verify the claims of hogh energy physics because my maths isn't good enough to understand the claims in the first place and I can't afford and don't have the skills to build a particle accelerator.
Nonetheless, the existence of quarks is a fact.
I am sure that many scientists that do care eno
Re: (Score:2)
A difference without a distinction. If you make a claim that is falsifiable I can verify it. Falsifiability necessitates others to verify results. Science is not built on trust.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is that invariably you are delegating responsibility on others and not proving facts. Instead, you're leaning on trust for truth. You parrot things as facts when you verify nothing of the kind. Ie, you prove the researchers points because you really aren't going out of your way to prove things except in limited instances.
The issue here is that you simply don't have the time and the ability to prove much for yourself. Your time on Earth is limited, and so are your abiilities. You can't verify the mass of the Higgs boson to be 126 GeV, because you don't have the money and the time and the craftmanship to build an LHC for yourself. So you have to take CERN's word for it.
All the talk about "verifying for yourself" is nice and tandy, but totally ignorant of the reality. The reality is that there are so many things you take for
Re: (Score:2)
because you don't have the money and the time and the craftmanship to build an LHC for yourself. So you have to take CERN's word for it. All the talk about "verifying for yourself" is nice and tandy, but totally ignorant of the reality.
A lack of means and motive does not prove CERN right. I would suspect that most people are indifferent to the discoveries made by the LHC. The point of science is that experiments can be repeated and claims can be verified. Yes, functionally you put a lot of trust in the accumulated knowledge we have. That is fine for things like the Higgs Boson but not so great for politics. If some billionaire really wanted to he could build an equivalent accelerator to try and disprove CERN which is a fundamental part of
Re: (Score:2)
When a source states that the atomic weight of Oxygen on Earth is reported at 15.999 one day and then 14.999 the next and maybe 15.5 the next because of an "anonymous scientist" said so, you begin to understand the problem people have with news organizations today.
Re: (Score:2)
What *is* new is that it's true you can't trust "facts" presented by major media corporations anymore, if you ever could. One's only reasonable course for determining what is closest to the truth is to read the same story from multiple sources and opinions, and be as objective as you can in weighing the credibility of
at some point you will accept other people fact (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What bias and what source would that be?
I know I am biased. What is your point?
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that every fact checker has an axe to grind is in itself a bias.
or it's the basis of skepticism.
I am not looking for a source to say "Yep I knew it! I was right all along". I am looking at different sources to see what is different and what overlaps between the different sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
All need revenue, some have agendas.
Some? Everyone has an agenda, even if it's just to attract readers by telling them what they want to hear. I primarily use BBC News and CNN. Both have excellent records on the facts, but I'd have to be deluded to think I was reading something written without bias.
I follow two accounts on Twitter - Same guy. And occasionally, his Tweets are news.
Re:Twitter is not journalism (Score:5, Informative)
Wow, praising CNN?
I remember when the report about Russian meddling first came out a month or two ago.
Both Fox and CBS (the only two others that I checked) included the fact that the Russians appeared to also support Bernie. CNN, for whatever reason, chose to omit this fact.
Then there was that time when CNN reported a Trump e-mail as being from September 4th instead of September 14th, which took the story from "Illegal" to "who cares." Yes, they had to correct it, but the damage was done.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/0... [cnn.com]
Then, there was the time that CNN had to "insert" a word into one of Trump's quotes in order to make him seem racist. Yeah, that is the height of honesty.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo... [thehill.com]
But if you believe their bias, then you don't see it as a bias.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, praising CNN?
Is "technically accurate but biased" praise? They typically are technically accurate and they typically are biased. Adding "racial" to profiling was dirty and unfair, even if they thought that was what he meant. The date on the email was a major, unfortunate, but rare blunder that they handled responsibly once it was pointed out. The Russians did support Bernie. And Trump. And Hillary. And the alt-right. And Antifa. Of course Fox focused on Bernie and of course CNN focused on Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
CNN and facts? Ha haa...
Guess what? The guy who most prominently screams FAKE NEWS at CNN is occasionally inaccurate himself. I can help with a couple of examples if you don't believe me. CNN, and especially cnn.com where I access their stories, has an excellent track record of getting the facts straight.
Back your shit up. Link me to a cnn.com story that gets the facts wrong. Or point me to a story where they made a mistake and doubled-down when corrected instead of retracting. You might start your search here [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
The guy who most prominently screams FAKE NEWS at CNN is occasionally inaccurate himself. I can help with a couple of examples if you don't believe me. CNN, and especially cnn.com where I access their stories, has an excellent track record of getting the facts straight.
And... almost all actual news sources will issue corrections in the cases where they get things wrong or incomplete. Our Tweeter-in-Chief, not so much -- though, to be fair, he lies so much he'd spend (at least) an equivalent amount of time issuing corrections. Hell (and it really hurts me to say this) even Fox News will issue corrections -- meaning the actual news part of the outlet, not their Opinion / Pundit masking as news part, -- the line between which they seem inclined to blur when it suits them.
Re: (Score:2)
...even Fox News will issue corrections -- meaning the actual news part of the outlet, not their Opinion / Pundit masking as news part...
Last time I watched Fox News (it's often playing at my dad's house), Tucker Carlson was saying that the Dems are trying to keep illegals in the country because illegal voting is keeping them in office. Opinion piece or not, unfounded allegations of voter fraud are irresponsible.
Re: (Score:2)
That one is actually straight from Pew:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac... [pewresearch.org]
It was seen in the last election as well, were pollsters said that latino population would go 8:1 to Clinton. Exit polls were only 2:1.
Why?
Pollsters forgot to ask if people they were polling were citizens, and hence had a right to vote.
So you'd have to be utterly stupid not to try to make such people citizens if you are a democratic politician in US.
Re: (Score:2)
Saying the Dems want to make illegals into citizens is entirely different than saying that illegal votes are keeping Dems in office. Tucker said the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
There is evidence of this kind of voter fraud on part of some Democratic party supporting organisations:
https://www.npr.org/2016/10/19... [npr.org]
It's likely fairly minor, but it appears to be practised by some.
Re: (Score:2)
When you trigger someone fanatical enough to tell you to kill yourself, you know you hit the nerve.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/... [cnn.com]
Do you consider this factual and trustworthy? If you were a layman and saw this, what would you think after that segment?
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to guns, I am a layman. I've fired a couple dozen, but know relatively little. After that segment, I thought that the AR-15 looked like a dangerous weapon similar to some used in war. Pretty sure it's dangerous by design and 'similar' is subjective. I guess I don't know enough to spot the inaccuracies, but I try to stay open-minded and am not under the delusion that CNN has never gotten anything wrong. What did they say that wasn't factual? I'd like to report it.
Re:Twitter is not journalism (Score:5, Informative)
Mark Hertling is an activist with an agenda yet they do not mention this (#vetsforgunreform). He maybe experienced being in the military but he is pushing a particular agenda and purposefully obfuscates information to push that agenda. As demonstrated by the poor handling and mentor-ship of the CNN presenter (seriously that opening with the guy flaccidly shooting the gun is ridiculous under that kind of mentor).
Blurs the line between civilian and military weapons. That is what they are doing when they talk about the looks and appearance. If I put spoiler on my car, racing stripes, and racing numbers does that make it a race car? Yet, black plastic is supposed to be more dangerous like the M-4?
In the 1950's Colt did market the AR-15 to the military which was a basis for the M4 but that doesn't mean the rifles are the same nor does it mean that their looks mean they functionally the same. The AR-15 is just like any number of civilian semi-automatic rifles.
"a defining characteristic of the AR-15 is the speed and power of the bullet." .. Absolute non-sense. the speed and power of the bullet are defining characteristics of the bullet, not the rifle. Any rifle with that caliber will have the same speed and power regardless what it looks like. You can get most gun models in different calibers.
@1:05 "now those are single shots. If I wanted to fire this on full semi-automatic all I do is keep firing.". There is no such thing as "full semi-automatic". All he means is that he is pulling the trigger faster. 1 trigger pull == 1 bullet. Any semi-automatic can be fired faster if you pull the trigger faster. There is only one firing mode the AR-15 has. His "switching" is him operating the weapon differently. Semi-automatic. "Full semi-automatic" is a blatant misinformation designed to misinform laymen.
"this weapon in the wrong hands can be more dangerous than most weapons because of its capability to do a lot of damage in a short period of time and is irreversible". Why? Because he can pull the trigger faster? Because it looks scary? Because of the bullet it shoots? It isn't more dangerous than any other semi automatic gun in the market. Name a gun whose damage can be reversed. Name a gun that is semi automatic that can't fire faster if you pull the trigger faster. The AR-15 isn't unique or special from any other weapon. Not the caliber of bullet. Not the speed at which you can fire it. Not the damage it can do. That is nature for every gun for every caliber ever made.
I have to wonder if it is stupidity or malice that they got so much wrong in a 2 minute segment. They are pushing an agenda using misinformation and ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
They never said the AR-15 and M4 were the same; they said one was the precursor of the other and they look alike.
"Speed and power of the bullet" is misleading, but I'm not sure I'm excited enough to complain.
"Full semi-automatic" is ridiculous. I missed it the first time I watched it. I don't know whether to call it inaccurate or not 'cuz it's just fucking nonsense. I assume that by "full" he meant "at maximum effect" but that was fucking stupid.
...The AR-15 isn't unique or special from any other weapon...
I'm not sure they were implying that it was. Of course bullet
Re: (Score:2)
I think part of that piece was just griping about semi-automatic rifles
I could probably agree with this. The problem is that the push recently is to "ban AR-15" and some ignorant people could use that segment as justification why the AR-15 should be banned even though it applies to all semi-automatic rifles meaning a near complete ban on most guns in the US.
They are pushing an agenda. I wouldn't even accuse FoxNews of deliberately presenting misinformation.
Misinformation was presented as factual. Whether that was malice or ignorance is another story. Whether it was deliberate is hardly redeeming if it is still up without any kind of correction or clarification.
How many other
Re: (Score:2)
...some ignorant people could use that segment as justification why the AR-15 should be banned...
Did you hear the thunderous applause after Rubio jokingly suggested banning all semi-automatic rifles while he was at the CNN town hall? Not all of these ignorant people are making a special case of the AR-15. And yes, I call them ignorant too. The notion of banning all semi-automatic rifles at this stage is pretty ridiculous.
Misinformation was presented as factual.
What would you have them retract? It's super slanted; part was misleading (intentionally?); the guy that the reporter thought was an expert said something stupid; and it's not a wonde
Re: (Score:2)
Did you hear the thunderous applause after Rubio jokingly suggested banning all semi-automatic rifles while he was at the CNN town hall?
And that will be used as evidence that many on the left want a complete gun ban.
What would you have them retract?
They don't' need to retract it or change the video but make something known in the description or something. If you make a mistake you own up it. Something to say "this is false.. this is misleading". I thought part of what made MSM institutions more reputable was that they made corrections when they get something wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
And that will be used as evidence that many on the left want a complete gun ban.
Many on the left do want a complete gun ban. A lot of them aren't even quiet about it. Not everybody is pro-2nd. I don't personally have much of a problem with guns, but I'm not everybody.
Re: (Score:2)
The only one to bring up trump here is you.
I apologize for evoking DJT, but it seems like he's been very influential in public opinion of CNN. They've always been accused of bias, but I haven't always heard them being called liars. DJT himself said that he was the first one to call them FAKE.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure that CNN itself created the fake news monicker.
Do you have anything to back that up? I'm legitimately interested. Google lead me here [merriam-webster.com], here [wikipedia.org], and here [cnn.com], but they tell it differently.
Re: (Score:2)
It was my fault. I may as well have yelled "Voldemort". CNN attacks make me think of DJT. Don't blame Rujiel for calling me out on it.
Re: (Score:2)
True, though there is occasionally journalism on it. But, neither do I believe that Twitter is completely new.
It used to be that if you really wanted to know what people believe, you could go hang out at the local barbershop for awhile. That was where opinions were hashed out and consensus was reached. Now that is happening on Twitter. Twitter and services like it are the new barbershops.
The problem is that it is easier to find a "barbershop" that doesn't disagree with anything that you'd like to believe. N
Re: (Score:2)
False information is far more interesting then the truth, that is why it spreads so easily.
Real life, has layers of boring complexities, where they are trade offs that need to be accounted for, and resources that may be better spent elsewhere.
Re: Twitter is not journalism (Score:2)
Real life is fascinating. Semi-official propaganda is boring.
Re: (Score:2)