Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks News Technology

Fake News 'Crowding Out' Real News (bbc.co.uk) 237

The volume of disinformation on the internet is growing so big that it is starting to crowd out real news, the Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee chairman has said. From a report: Tory MP Damian Collins said people struggle to identify "fake news." MPs in their committee report [PDF] said the issue threatens democracy and called for tougher social network regulation. The government said it plans to introduce a requirement for electoral adverts to have a "digital imprint". This would mean that all political communications carried online would need to clearly identify who they were published by. Labour said the government "needs to wake up to the new challenges we face and finally update electoral laws". The report follows the Cambridge Analytica data scandal earlier this year. The London-based data analytics firms and tech giant Facebook were at the centre of a dispute over the harvesting and use of personal data - and whether it was used to influence the outcome of the US 2016 presidential election or the UK Brexit referendum.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fake News 'Crowding Out' Real News

Comments Filter:
  • by s_p_oneil ( 795792 ) on Monday July 30, 2018 @11:35AM (#57033632) Homepage

    Starting? I think that boat sailed (and probably sank) years ago.

    • Re:Starting? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by tsqr ( 808554 ) on Monday July 30, 2018 @11:53AM (#57033776)

      Starting? I think that boat sailed (and probably sank) years ago.

      Indeed. The National Enquirer was founded in 1926. But then, it's not run by Russian agents (afaik), so maybe it doesn't count.

    • Re:Starting? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by racermd ( 314140 ) on Monday July 30, 2018 @12:26PM (#57034080)

      The difference I see today vs. yesteryear is that the populace at-large is doing less critical thinking about how news should be ingested. That is, asking the following questions: Who is writing it? Why are they writing it? Is it to inform or entertain (or both)? What viewpoint are they trying to convey and why is that viewpoint important from the perspective of the author? How is it important to you as the reader/viewer?

      Picking up on the objective of the author was one of the little details that was stressed for a short period when I was in high school (more than half my life ago... wow, I feel old). I think my classes covered that subject for all of about two weeks before moving on to other test-able curricula.

      We see a lot of stress on the "what" and not much on the "why" and "who." While we ought to trust the news outlets to do that job, certain "news" outlets absolutely have an agenda and either selectively choose to report certain facts to reinforce their message or omit certain facts that may undermine that message. Another tactic is presenting opinion as "fact" or outright lying. Knowing what kind of message the outlet is trying to convey is as important as the content they publish. Much of the "fake news" can easily be filtered out by the reader if they just apply those basic steps while seeking out reporting from multiple diverse sources and knowing how to properly independently fact-check sources.

      I guess I'm saying that people, in general, may need a refresher on those critical thinking skills.

      • The difference I see today vs. yesteryear is that the populace at-large is doing less critical thinking about how news should be ingested. That is, asking the following questions: Who is writing it? Why are they writing it? Is it to inform or entertain (or both)? What viewpoint are they trying to convey and why is that viewpoint important from the perspective of the author? How is it important to you as the reader/viewer?

        Not to mention, what are the actual facts, what is the evidence, who did the gatherin

        • The difference I see today vs. yesteryear is that the populace at-large is doing less critical thinking about how news should be ingested.

          I don't know what you mean by "yesteryear", but the number of sources for news is increasing exponentially. 50 years ago, you had the big 3 networks and the newspaper, and that was it. Regardless of what you thought about the source, your choices were extremely limited. I think it was about 50 years ago that widespread distrust of the media started to become a thing.

          No

      • The difference I see today vs. yesteryear is that the populace at-large is doing less critical thinking about how news should be ingested. That is, asking the following questions: Who is writing it? Why are they writing it? Is it to inform or entertain (or both)? What viewpoint are they trying to convey and why is that viewpoint important from the perspective of the author? How is it important to you as the reader/viewer?

        Is that really any different than yesteryear? Classically, most people got their news from their local paper, which advanced their own biases. For example, I'm in Boston, where we have a liberal, pro-Democratic paper, the Boston Globe; and a conservative, pro-Republican paper, the Boston Herald, and their news and opinion articles are clearly slanted to advance the editors' viewpoint. Pre-Internet, the vast majority of people subscribed to only one of those papers. And while we'd like to believe that people

        • The Internet makes it easier to find diverse sources so as to not be in an echo chamber.

          It also makes it easier to find ones which agree with you.

          Want to take a guess which path most people choose?

      • by Shotgun ( 30919 )

        The difference I see today vs. yesteryear is that the populace at-large is doing less critical thinking about how news should be ingested. That is, asking the following questions: Who is writing it? Why are they writing it? Is it to inform or entertain (or both)? What viewpoint are they trying to convey and why is that viewpoint important from the perspective of the author? How is it important to you as the reader/viewer?

        Wow! Really? You really think grandma and grandpa did anything but completely lap up whatever the talking head on the box had to say? You think they critically analyzed and questioned the motivations of the thing their government was feeding them?

      • Too many people assume that if the story matches their preconceived notions that it must be accurate. Then they start filtering out contrary views. Flat earth thinking on a global scale.

    • until we perfect AI bullshit detectors that is.

      Even then, how will you know you're believing an honest AI?

      Learn and use solid epistemology principles (and cognitive bias awareness) in deciding what to believe and how much. Anyone that can't do that is no more than a victim going forward; flotsam tossed on the seas of garbage.

  • by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Monday July 30, 2018 @11:36AM (#57033646)

    First, fake news is not crowding out real news. But this article is perhaps an example of fake news. Is it crowding out something?

    • by Ksevio ( 865461 ) on Monday July 30, 2018 @11:39AM (#57033662) Homepage
      I imagine it depends a lot on your news source. If you only get your news from facebook and are friends with lots of gullible idiots, then you're gonna see a lot of fake news
      • by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Monday July 30, 2018 @11:46AM (#57033728)

        The beauty of the internet is that it allows readers to check multiple sources for any one subject/story, as opposed to just swallowing whatever the legacy media told them to believe. That scares the shit out of them.

        • by bobbied ( 2522392 ) on Monday July 30, 2018 @12:03PM (#57033860)

          The beauty of the internet is that it allows readers to check multiple sources for any one subject/story, as opposed to just swallowing whatever the legacy media told them to believe. That scares the shit out of them.

          The danger of the internet is literally anybody can put up a website that looks like it's a reliable source so it's easy to fool a lot of people quickly. The next danger is the ability to skew search engine results by "paying" for higher ranking.

          The end result is that the "truth" is for sale and there is no way to know if what you are reading is actually the truth or somebody's attempt to influence you to support their cause.

          Also, it means the that the mainstream media outlets, who are chasing profits, are prone to publish sensationalism over substance.. Which is the third problem... The internet is about profit, not about facts or truth. What they fear is losing their audience, either by offending them when the facts don't agree with reader's opinions or being shown for the profit whores they have become.

          Then, dare I mention him, Trump comes along and upsets everybody's apple carts, by using the same medium to push his messaging and all you know what breaks lose. Now we are in this rough and tumble period where everybody has to figure out what the hub-bub is about and when and how it will end.

          The new reality is, the internet is a waste land where grains of truth are strewn about in the sand dunes of a partisan desert being blow around by the breath of the yelling talking heads.

          • by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Monday July 30, 2018 @12:14PM (#57033986)

            Before the internet literally anybody could spread whatever rumor they wanted and there was no way to check for yourself. It wasn't that long ago that such word of mouth was the only way to get any news.

            • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Monday July 30, 2018 @12:24PM (#57034050)

              Before the internet literally anybody could spread whatever rumor they wanted and there was no way to check for yourself. It wasn't that long ago that such word of mouth was the only way to get any news.

              And before the internet those rumors were pretty much limited to people you know. Now, with the internet, as Jonathan Swift said "Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it". People are more likely to believe the first thing they hear, so by the time the truth reaches them, it's too late.

              • by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Monday July 30, 2018 @12:31PM (#57034138)

                The answer is more critical thinking, not less. More information, not less. It's OK to venture outside your bubble and read something you disagree with every now and then.

                • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

                  The answer is more critical thinking, not less. More information, not less. It's OK to venture outside your bubble and read something you disagree with every now and then.

                  I agree. The only way to refute people peddling lies and falsehoods is to first know what they are peddling. That's why I occasionally listen to talk radio on the way home in the afternoon. The problem is, most people throwing around the "fake news" mantra are decidedly not using critical thinking.

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by apoc.famine ( 621563 )

                  Which is super telling when one party tries to defund education while the other tries to pump money into it.

            • Before the internet literally anybody could spread whatever rumor they wanted and there was no way to check for yourself. It wasn't that long ago that such word of mouth was the only way to get any news.

              And even then, the media, was agenda driven. I observed such political bias 25 years ago in the media, long before the internet was a thing or the talking heads came into being. I can assure you that it's much WORSE now.

              The question is what the antidote is. MORE garbage from the internet? Censorship OF the internet? What?

              Censorship is NOT the answer, nor is it consistent with the 1st amendment. So we cannot do this anyway. What does that leave?

              In my view, the solution is one of personal responsibili

            • But the owners of the legacy media had a lot more control of what got published or at least which direction the spin should have.

              For instance, work contracts between the German newspaper publisher Axel Springer SE used to contain clauses that required solidarity with the USA and a commitment to Israel's right to live. Which is clearly a bias.
              Now I cannot really complain about the Israel part. Germany still has no moral right to bash Israel. Not after the Holocaust. But the "solidarity with USA" part shows t

            • It wasn't that long ago that such word of mouth was the only way to get any news.

              At least when you get news via "word of mouth" you see whose mouth it's coming out of, and you know who to blame when it turns out to be bullshit.

              That is in contrast to those who get their news from 4chan or reddit or Cambridge Analytica.

              The internet as it exists today is literally a psyops machine. And it's a machine that collects information on you and knows exactly what BS you are inclined to believe.

          • by rickb928 ( 945187 ) on Monday July 30, 2018 @12:18PM (#57034014) Homepage Journal

            It was once assumed that any news outlet that could afford to publish was trustworthy - proof that not only does money talk, it demands to be heard.

            And we know that news outlets that predated the Internet are no more or less trustworthy now than they were back then. Discerning truth or at least objectivity isn't any easier than ever, though it seems harder because there are more to consider. This is false. Those legacy outlets had a history that confirmed trust without any real foundation.

            • It was once assumed that any news outlet that could afford to publish was trustworthy - proof that not only does money talk, it demands to be heard.

              And we know that news outlets that predated the Internet are no more or less trustworthy now than they were back then. Discerning truth or at least objectivity isn't any easier than ever, though it seems harder because there are more to consider. This is false. Those legacy outlets had a history that confirmed trust without any real foundation.

              Personally I find the legacy outlets only slightly better than the fly by night, come lately, website operators. Most of the legacy operators have long ago left the era where "news" was about network prestige, trust and not profit. There are a few dinosaurs left who attempt to adhere to traditional journalistic ethics at these places, but profits are driving your local newsroom and have for more than a decade. News papers are dying, Network news has deteriorated into the dueling 24 hour cable news networ

        • by Teun ( 17872 )
          All around me I see lazy consumers taking any message for the truth, especially if it comes from Fox News.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by DatbeDank ( 4580343 )

          The beauty of the internet is that it allows readers to check multiple sources for any one subject/story, as opposed to just swallowing whatever the legacy media told them to believe. That scares the shit out of them.

          Except most "journalists" these days just copy and paste identical stories from the same wire service or press release without doing any real writing or thinking.

        • The beauty of the internet is that it allows readers to check multiple sources for any one subject/story,

          The downside of the internet is that people can find a source confirming anything no matter how wrong.

          legacy

          n. something no longer fashionable which usually differes from the proposed alternative by actually working. (apologies to Stroustrup)

          • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            People don't fact check all the stuff they read. Most of the time they don't even read TFA, it's not just a Slashdot tradition it's everywhere.

            That's how this stuff works. It's just believable enough for people to not bother questioning it or reading too deeply. Over time it skews their world view and they start believing the really crazy stuff.

      • I imagine it depends a lot on your news source. If you only get your news from facebook and are friends with lots of gullible idiots, then you're gonna see a lot of fake news

        To be fair I think that there's a lot of examples of inaccurate news from "regular" news outlets. I've lost count of how many many news articles conflate illegal immigrant with legal immigrant for example. These biases cause "regular" news to get dubbed fake news, and the label really has been earned in many cases. Every site has some axe to grind is my observation.

        • by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Monday July 30, 2018 @11:51AM (#57033760)

          I've never read any news story I was an expert on and seen it fully correct. One has to read widely to not be mislead even accidentally.

        • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

          I imagine it depends a lot on your news source. If you only get your news from facebook and are friends with lots of gullible idiots, then you're gonna see a lot of fake news

          To be fair I think that there's a lot of examples of inaccurate news from "regular" news outlets. I've lost count of how many many news articles conflate illegal immigrant with legal immigrant for example. These biases cause "regular" news to get dubbed fake news, and the label really has been earned in many cases. Every site has some axe to grind is my observation.

          Biased news is not inherently "fake news". All news has some level of inherent bias just from the level of deciding what is "newsworthy" and what isn't. And that's before adding any editorial spin on the facts. You just have to recognize that bias and account for it. For example I get a lot of my foreign news from al-Jazeera, and I realize a lot of their content will have a pro-Qatar and pro-Palestine slant. There will always be inaccuracies as well, it's the nature of information-you always get more wi

          • Biased news is not inherently "fake news". All news has some level of inherent bias just from the level of deciding what is "newsworthy" and what isn't. And that's before adding any editorial spin on the facts. You just have to recognize that bias and account for it. For example I get a lot of my foreign news from al-Jazeera, and I realize a lot of their content will have a pro-Qatar and pro-Palestine slant. There will always be inaccuracies as well, it's the nature of information-you always get more with time. "Fake news" is taking objective facts and claiming the opposite, not transparently correcting factual inaccuracies in reporting once they become known, or even just making shit up. "Fake news" has gone from the meaning "false news" to "news I don't like".

            Deliberately cherry picking stats from legal immigrants, who are largely positive, and applying those to illegal immigrants, who are largely negative, is more than editorial bias. It's deliberately being misleading, which is certainly a flavor of lying, and is in fact what I'd call fake news. Here is an example: https://www.vox.com/2018/4/13/... [vox.com] The straw man they create is illegal immigrants pay no taxes. The actual issue many taxpayers have , myself included, is that illegal immigrants take out more t

      • by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Monday July 30, 2018 @12:00PM (#57033840)

        I subscribe to both the NY times and the Wall Street Journal (just don't read the comments section or the editorials). There's plenty of real news in these papers. Support them if you like real news.

        Non-paywalled news is going to go for clicks as the profit center so Dopamine news is what one gets there. It's not necessarily fake just not composed with integrity as it's quantity over quality.

        Real news just doesn't change fast enough. This is also why news tied to a print publisher has sort of a natural limit of quantity and durability.

    • to back up your assertion? The MP report is sourced. You can disagree with the sources, but you didn't do that. You just said "No, that's not true".
  • by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Monday July 30, 2018 @11:38AM (#57033656)
    At least on social media, people have lost their collective minds. We've stopped posting anything that allows for any sort of discussion on social media, because people seem to be really insane on social media. They say and act very stupidly. If this is where most people are getting their news these days (and I don't doubt that it is), God help us all. The human race is going to eat itself because it's too fucking stupid to live.
  • by forkfail ( 228161 ) on Monday July 30, 2018 @11:40AM (#57033672)

    ...under which full censorship and surveillance will come.

    In this postmodern age, most are more interested in their own subjective truth being widely accepted than they are in actual objective truth for its own sake. Thus, the question becomes not so much "will it happen" but "who will control it". And the powers that be are already operating on this premise.

    • by nine-times ( 778537 ) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Monday July 30, 2018 @12:15PM (#57033996) Homepage

      Unfortunately, creating fake news is also one of the steps that authoritarians take on their way to dictatorships.

      The real problem isn't people calling out fake news as such, but the people in power incorrectly calling out real news as "fake news", and then using their power to push their own fake news.

      Because really, there is actual fake news, and it needs to be identified. The government doesn't need to censor it, but we, as a people, need to resist against malicious propagandists.

      • Unfortunately, creating fake news is also one of the steps that authoritarians take on their way to dictatorships.

        The real problem isn't people calling out fake news as such, but the people in power incorrectly calling out real news as "fake news", and then using their power to push their own fake news.

        Because really, there is actual fake news, and it needs to be identified. The government doesn't need to censor it, but we, as a people, need to resist against malicious propagandists.

        As long as the people tasked with identifying what's true and what's fake are not the people in power.

        • Well I agree... to a point. For example, I don't think it's controversial to think that law enforcement can get involved in cases of fraud, or that courts can hear slander and liable cases. There are times when a disreputable source of information needs to be taken to task, but there has to be a very high standard for that.

          But what I was arguing is more that, there's a particularly knee-jerk reaction towards anything resembling censorship, and we worry about true things being labelled "fake news" by some

    • Yup.. We are rushing headlong into a story line that would make Orwell proud..

  • by Snotnose ( 212196 ) on Monday July 30, 2018 @11:43AM (#57033696)
    Mostly because I get 0.0% of my news from Social Media. And it will stay that way until some pissed off relative signs my corpse up with Facebook.
  • Long time coming (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Virtucon ( 127420 ) on Monday July 30, 2018 @11:43AM (#57033702)

    This started when news became

    1) Less filtered. We had journalists and editors. Journalists sought out stories, investigated them and editors reviewed their work. Sure there were biases and still are but now it's about getting first to get it out there quality of source/content be damned. This also precipitates more lazy fuck journalists and so-called editors more anxious to get a story pushed and who gives two fucks about if it's true or not.
    2) More entertainment. News was something that happened all the time but you were exposed to it less frequently. Now you have TV shows, Cable Networks and the Internet bombarding you stories that are more infotainment than news. It's hard to distinguish what's important vs. fluffy kittens. This has also led to aggregators who now calls themselves news organizations *cough* Huffington Post *cough* News used to be consumed when you read a newspaper, a magazine or watched the evening news with Cronkite, now it's in your face 24/7 and they have airtime to fill. That's why you have contrived things like "townhall meetings" to discuss whether or not Michelle Obama's opinion actually fucking matters.
    3) ADHD of our population. Attention span akin to the life expectancy of gnats.
    4) I blame the parents, get off my lawn.

  • The volume of disinformation on the internet is growing so big that it is starting to crowd out real news

    I think this article is a perfect example since that isn't actually true except in the minds of those who want it to be so. Back here in the real world "fake news" is something that mostly exists in the mind of one Donald John Trump and his supporters and it means news he doesn't like. He actually acts as if sources like Fox News report actual facts reliably. There is some actual false or misleading reporting but that is nothing new and will never go away.

    And frankly if you actually use twitter or Facebo

  • To begin to solve the 'fake news' problem (and it is a problem) people should dump 'social media', or at least limit it to people the actually know. Fake 'friends' on social media are at the core of the problem; why would anyone believe what someone you've never met or even spoken to tells you? Using 'social media' as a news source is just plain dumb and people need to learn to not do it anymore.
  • Two world wars were fought to save democracy.

    Now it is threatened by "fake news," whatever that is?

    Forget it -- if your system is that fragile, let it fall.

    Giving everyone the vote, regardless of whether they can tell fake from real, was a mistake obviously.

  • There has always been fake news - we used to call it bullshit, hearsay, rumors, gossip.... whatever
    There are 3 critical differences today.
    First, most people seem to completely lack critical thinking skills.
    Second, as advertising dollars have gone charging after social media, away from traditional news, we've lost research, vetting, source verification, professionalism and objectivity from the news cycle
    And Lastly is political polarization. We have politicians, more importantly the "leader of the fre
    • Allow me to respond.

      First, people appear more gullible that ever, more so on the internet where everyone is somewhat faceless.

      Second, advertising is worse than that, sometimes it isn't even clear it is an advertisement. There is so much noise now news and truth get lost in the muck, assuming an advertisement hasn't blocked or driven you away from the content.

      Third, we have a political party that lost an election, and ever since since has been on a smear and tear down campaign of the winner all while crying

      • First - yes, that's essentially what i said.
        Second - perhaps advertising is "worse", but then again, without vetted news people, stories and processes - a result of advertising capital moving from news media to social medial - no organization can be held accountable.
        Third - Fact; the GOP hasn't won popular vote in a first term presidential election since Bush 1 - 27 years ago. . The only way the GOP can hang on to the seat is via gerrymandering. But, you just keep waiving that "lost election" flag so
  • That's something that people who get their news from bloggers, radical radio hosts, social media, and shady news aggregator sites will learn the hard way.
  • The problem is that all the sources of news have proven untrustworthy, so there's no way to validate the stories. People want to believe what they want to believe anyway, and if there's no place that has trustworthy reporting, why fight it?

    If the traditional news sources had not sold out (generally after being bought up), then the problem would be considerably less severe. As it is...

    There are still a few sources I generally trust. They are biased, but I haven't noticed them actually lying. Of course, t

  • Tory MP Damian Collins said people struggle to identify "fake news."

    "fake news" rarely holds up to scrutiny and fact checking. So it's not really a struggle, but a glut of apathy.

  • ... is to bar "news," from entering the social media bubbles and echo chambers.

    Social media is just that: A meeting place to be social.

    News sites abound outside those limits and consumers can elect where to go get it.

    Fake news will always be available and popular.

    Look at The Enquirer.

    People recognize tabloids for what they are.

  • "threatens democracy and called for tougher social network regulation"

    So because something threatens freedom, they should become less free

  • .. to get worked up over this. They had a lot of trouble with someone writing articles under the phony identity of Silence Dogood some time ago.

If you steal from one author it's plagiarism; if you steal from many it's research. -- Wilson Mizner

Working...