If you've been paying attention, you know that the outcry against "fake news" isn't really about fake news at all but rather about news that doesn't support a particular political orthodoxy, i.e. pro-Clinton, Obama, Democrat, left.

I read an Associated Press story in the Sun-Times yesterday by Josh Lederman that I wanted to post as an example of fake news that won't be called out as fake news. It basically said that Trump was going to change eight years of "Obama's toughness on Russia". So ridiculous it made me laugh, since in Obama's eight years Russia has invaded Ukraine and taken complete control of the Middle East. Putin was dividing up Syria this week with Turkey and Iran while the U.S. had no seat at the table.

I tried to find the actual quote from the story but I could not. Because- and here's the really interesting thing- I found the story but it had been edited with the part about Obama's "toughness" on Russia removed. Kudos to AP for recognizing real fake news.

Uhhh, no. The outcry is against fake news.

http://www.newser.com/story/236204/thes ... -year.html

On Facebook, there are a ton of pages that solely pump out entirely falsified 'news articles.'

But with the supermarket tabloids, I think everyone was in on the joke. Occupy Democrats and all those Facebook pages are meant to deceive.

There has always been fake news. It used to be in weeklies like the National Examiner at the checkout counter. Now it's on Facebook.

I never heard the term "fake news" in the context in which it is now being used until Hillary Clinton lost the election.

If we get 100% rid of fake news isn't the Onion done?

There exists no law proscribing telling fanciful, ultimately false, tales and/or otherwise publishing them. Nor should there be. You can be sued for it, but the government does not have the power to prevent you from saying what you want to say.

Our codified freedom of speech makes no special exception for "news" or "fake news", nor should it. Proscribing "fake news" in any way will result in a system wherein any individual or group of insufficient prominence isn't as well-protected by free speech laws as The New York Times. That shouldn't seem like a desirable outcome to anybody.

There exists no law proscribing telling fanciful, ultimately false, tales and/or otherwise publishing them. Nor should there be. You can be sued for it, but the government does not have the power to prevent you from saying what you want to say.

Our codified freedom of speech makes no special exception for "news" or "fake news", nor should it. Proscribing "fake news" in any way will result in a system wherein any individual or group of insufficient prominence isn't as well-protected by free speech laws as The New York Times. That shouldn't seem like a desirable outcome to anybody.

Absolutely.

And it obviously is a partisan issue driven by the loss of an election. For example, I would suggest that publishing the statement that Russia "hacked the election" is fake news. It's very specific language and not written that way without an express purpose. The truthful way to put it would be to say Russians (or someone) hacked the DNC.

That's not fake news. That's just a headline grabber. Fake news would be "Russians Hacked Voting Machines". You're attempting to redefine what "fake news" is.

Might part of the problem also be that "fake news" doesn't have a concrete definition? Is it defined solely as "patently false statement of fact"?

That's not fake news. That's just a headline grabber. Fake news would be "Russians Hacked Voting Machines". You're attempting to redefine what "fake news" is.

I think the problem is people with an agenda are trying to throw opinion pieces and satirical stuff in the fake news pot. "Hillary did all she could to silence her email critics" is an opinion. Very few people would have an issue with that. "Hillary assassinated Federal Agent ________ to prevent the public from learning that she gave classified documents to China" is fake news.

Who gets to define "fake news"? Hillary Clinton, Mark Zuckerberg, and you?

You know damn well what the specific language "hacked the election" is attempting to suggest.

"Election was hacked" is fake news.

Clearly not you. A headline meant to grab your attention isn't the same as an article where 100% of the story is fake. I'm sure you understand that but that doesn't fit the narrative that you've been trying to push since Trump won.

biased and misleading is less dangerous than fake.

I'm not the one pushing or defending a false narrative.

JORR you know what people are talking about when they decry "fake news".

It isn't a story you disagree with.

It's this.



And this



And this

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... use-of-me/