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.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.

There is "fake news" on either side.

Fake news....snowflake....safe space....blah blah blah. God....I am so tired of hearing about all this shit.

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.'

_________________
Rick Hahn is the best GM in baseball.

Fake news.

_________________

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.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.

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

_________________

I think Fox News really brought the slanted and jaded world view to the forefront. It added idealogy to reporting such that one could have his spin attached to any story.

The mainstream was shaken by Trump's unorthodox victory. It has been unable to explain how Americans voted for such a vile candidate.

I don't trust media at all anymore. I take a fully skeptical view of any story.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

You would hope people were in on the tabloid joke, but I'd say the same about a lot of the Facebook stuff too. Also, all supermarket tabloids aren't equal. The Enquirer has actually broken stories that mainstream news outlets have then been forced to follow up on.

Take that Vox headline you posted above. I suppose Klein's defense would be that it was an opinion piece. But anyone who thinks it wasn't designed to influence (read: deceive) is kidding himself.

I just don't want Sergey Brin or Mark Zuckerberg being the final arbiters on what stories are "real".

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.

The National Inquire is what it is. It doesn't pretend to be anything else. Fake News sites pretend to be legitimate News Papers and MANY people aren't sophisticated enough to recognize that and they share the stories. Providing commentary or allowing a bias to seep into an article is far different from completely making a story up.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

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

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"

Satire is different. Especially considering the satirical sites disclose that.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

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.

I agree. I'm not sure what you do about idiot citizens believing "fake news" over "real news" but censorship definitely isn't the answer.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... story.html

Just another part of the Russian plot!

_________________

Similarly, I think people and organizations that have campaigned fiercely for an "open and free internet"--despite the Internet being, in large part, private infrastructure--have a large problem then turning around and declaring themselves the arbiters of what kinds of content people should be able to see.

The central tenets of the arguments Zuck, Google, and Netflix made to get The Internet classified as a Title II utility, to campaign against de facto content restriction by ISP's, etc., are violated by their self-appointed power to dictate which content is "real". The Internet, it would seem, despite it's largely private ownership, is a public utility when the content being restricted is binge watching Game of Thrones or Facebook's seeding in search results, but when the topic is "fake news" these (Facebook, Google, et al.) are private companies operating on the Internet, and free to restrict content in any way they please.

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.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.

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.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

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"?

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.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

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.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.

"Election was hacked" is fake news.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.

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.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

A headline like that isn't regardless of how many times you say it is.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

biased and misleading is less dangerous than fake.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest

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

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.

I don't know about that. "Russia hacked election" is clearly more dangerous than Pizzagate.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.

yes but one side means well and the other is nefarious.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest

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/

_________________

You created this thread to push it.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

That's exactly what I'm talking about and your bias is showing.

"Russia hacked election" isn't simply something I disagree with, it's something that didn't occur. I'm not even sure how one "hacks" an election. But I guarantee you there are people out there who believe the Russian government somehow manipulated American vote totals based on nothing but this fake news. There's a reason it's being reported that way rather than saying "Russia hacked DNC." The specific language is designed to promote a false narrative and the idea that Trump is an illegitimate president.

If Hillary Clinton had won the election no one would be talking about "fake news".

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.