Post-Buzzfeed, media does a 180 on "Fake News", say it's a dangerous term which can silence people

lecter

not even webscale
@Silver
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
11,265
Reaction score
0
So we heard how "Fake News" are extremely dangerous and a propaganda tool for quite some time now, especially when right-wing websites, blogs or opinions were labeled as "Fake News". Of course, the most prominent spokesman for this cause was Hillary Clinton when she felt that unverified stories and a lack of journalistic standards might hurt her reputation or the reputation of people associated with her. The called it an 'epidemic' and, together with other Dems, even was pushing for laws against fake news. The MSM followed.

They also enthusiastically reported how European governments prepare to fight against "Fake News".
The narrative in the liberal media clearly was that it's appropriate for a government to fight fake news, and there's no way to spin this. And that always implies that somebody has to define what actually is considered Fake News, that should have been obvious all the time.

After the Buzzfeed debacle, the Washington post suddenly became critical of the term 'fake news', repeating the exact same concerns which people on the right or conservatives voiced a long time before. They now publish articles like "It’s time to retire the tainted term ‘fake news’". On how it's subjective what Fake News is and how it's easy to label anything as fake news: "the label has been co-opted to mean any number of completely different things: Liberal claptrap. Or opinion from left-of-center. Or simply anything in the realm of news that the observer doesn’t like to hear."

Now, they suddenly see it as a weapon of the 'conservative media machine' after ridiculing claims from the right that it might be used as a weapon of the liberal media machine:
" “The speed with which the term became polarized and in fact a rhetorical weapon illustrates how efficient the conservative media machine has become,” said George Washington University professor Nikki Usher. "
The NYT titles: "Wielding Claims of ‘Fake News,’ Conservatives Take Aim at Mainstream Media"

Looks like the same problem that I have with the liberals' and leftists' mentality when it comes to a lot of topics: The believe that government should do something under the assumption that the 'right' guys are in charge and that it's done 'the right way' (agreeing with them), then they panic when somebody else would be in charge of similar actions.

I agree with their latest assessments. The term should be retired and Trump shouldn't label single media outlets as fake news. But maybe that would be easier if they had not promoted the term in an absolutely uncritical way and ridiculed critique of the 'fake news' initiative for the last 3 months.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...a7516c-d375-11e6-945a-76f69a399dd5_story.html
 
Last edited:
The MSM is so desperate they blatantly throw shit on the wall just to see what sticks, or in this case they see what will come back and splat on their faces.
 
It is, specifically because you tools started calling credible publications fake news rather than making a fair case. It's a great tactic. Now the investigation stops at fake news, and the heard can just block out information without any subtlety.
 
And before rustled jimmy,

I'm sorry I called y'all tools.
 
Summary: fake news was a cool marketing term, until people found the idea so absurd, it became a weapon against its creators.
 
It is, specifically because you tools started calling credible publications fake news rather than making a fair case. It's a great tactic. Now the investigation stops at fake news, and the heard can just block out information without any subtlety.

Ok there Tejano Chris.
 
It is, specifically because you tools started calling credible publications fake news rather than making a fair case. It's a great tactic. Now the investigation stops at fake news, and the heard can just block out information without any subtlety.

And of course, your conclusion is it would be fine if only the wrong people had not made the wrong decisions.
Did you ever consider that it might not be the best idea to create and give somebody tools which obviously can be misused, and very easily so, in the first place? Especially if it's not absolutely necessary for a society? What exactly is wrong with the status quo where people can create their content and the mature individual has to decide on its own how much trust they put into certain sources and how much research they do on their own?
And even if you think that doesn't work anymore because people aren't intelligent enough, why would it be the government's job to fix that?
Also, we don't live in an anarchy. You can not say ANYTHING about a specific individual.
Defamation is a civil wrong. If something truly is defamation, the victim can sue for defamation. And it's very important in a free country that the threshold for something which has to be in balance with the right of free speech is very high.
We don't need additional, arbitrary and dangerous laws and initiatives against fake news.
 
Summary: fake news was a cool marketing term, until people found the idea so absurd, it became a weapon against its creators.
Precisely the case. It really was just a marketing endeavor that bit them in the ass the moment they produced their own bit of complete bullshit.
 
If I was fake news I would denounce the term too.
 
And before rustled jimmy,

I'm sorry I called y'all tools.
Yeah. Fuck off. It's the Hillary media's reporting on the election that breached the chasm.
All of the news is fake news. There is nothing out there without slant.
 
It's like they have no shame. They clearly have no respect for their audience/readership.
 
CNN essentially coined "fake news".

Trump using his first Press conference to call "CNN" fake news was such a beautiful conclusion to the phase. Full circle type stuff
 
And of course, your conclusion is it would be fine if only the wrong people had not made the wrong decisions.
Did you ever consider that it might not be the best idea to create and give somebody tools which obviously can be misused, and very easily so, in the first place? Especially if it's not absolutely necessary for a society? What exactly is wrong with the status quo where people can create their content and the mature individual has to decide on its own how much trust they put into certain sources and how much research they do on their own?
And even if you think that doesn't work anymore because people aren't intelligent enough, why would it be the government's job to fix that?
Also, we don't live in an anarchy. You can not say ANYTHING about a specific individual.
Defamation is a civil wrong. If something truly is defamation, the victim can sue for defamation. And it's very important in a free country that the threshold for something which has to be in balance with the right of free speech is very high.
We don't need additional, arbitrary and dangerous laws and initiatives against fake news.

Well, the term was used appropriately early on to identify a rather new phenomenon, and now it's being used inappropriately to shut out legitimate publications.


I don't think it's censorship to call out phony publications for what they are. I mean, do you think the people who identified these websites really had the foresight to see that "fake news" would become such a dangerous term?
They called it what it was.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Things are going to slide. Slide in all directions. Won't be nothing, nothing you can measure anymore.

I've seen the future, brother, it is murder.
 
This comes off like some sad little kid that didn't get his way.

Hey no fair that was our ball; you can't play with it. I'm taking my ball and going home now.
 
Well this is what happens when every idiot out there starts calling every article or outlet they don't like fake news.

t11.jpg
 
So we heard how "Fake News" are extremely dangerous and a propaganda tool for quite some time now, especially when right-wing websites, blogs or opinions were labeled as "Fake News". Of course, the most prominent spokesman for this cause was Hillary Clinton when she felt that unverified stories and a lack of journalistic standards might hurt her reputation or the reputation of people associated with her. The called it an 'epidemic' and, together with other Dems, even was pushing for laws against fake news. The MSM followed.

They also enthusiastically reported how European governments prepare to fight against "Fake News".
The narrative in the liberal media clearly was that it's appropriate for a government to fight fake news, and there's no way to spin this. And that always implies that somebody has to define what actually is considered Fake News, that should have been obvious all the time.

After the Buzzfeed debacle, the Washington post suddenly became critical of the term 'fake news', repeating the exact same concerns which people on the right or conservatives voiced a long time before. They now publish articles like "It’s time to retire the tainted term ‘fake news’". On how it's subjective what Fake News is and how it's easy to label anything as fake news: "the label has been co-opted to mean any number of completely different things: Liberal claptrap. Or opinion from left-of-center. Or simply anything in the realm of news that the observer doesn’t like to hear."

Now, they suddenly see it as a weapon of the 'conservative media machine' after ridiculing claims from the right that it might be used as a weapon of the liberal media machine:
" “The speed with which the term became polarized and in fact a rhetorical weapon illustrates how efficient the conservative media machine has become,” said George Washington University professor Nikki Usher. "
The NYT titles: "Wielding Claims of ‘Fake News,’ Conservatives Take Aim at Mainstream Media"

Looks like the same problem that I have with the liberals' and leftists' mentality when it comes to a lot of topics: The believe that government should do something under the assumption that the 'right' guys are in charge and that it's done 'the right way' (agreeing with them), then they panic when somebody else would be in charge of similar actions.

I agree with their latest assessments. The term should be retired and Trump shouldn't label single media outlets as fake news. But maybe that would be easier if they had not promoted the term in an absolutely uncritical way and ridiculed critique of the 'fake news' initiative for the last 3 months.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...a7516c-d375-11e6-945a-76f69a399dd5_story.html
Wonder how/if it will impact the actions of facebook if this viewpoint sticks.

Also glad to see some né call out how overused (as a weapon against "the other guys") and ultimately meaningless-without-clarification this term has become.

Hear hear!
 
Back
Top