Try to define 'fake news'.

[Cmart]

This misses the point. You can object to that stuff with other terms. Fake news refers to fake news, not to stuff that "may not be technically false but selectively omit(s) information..." When you use the same term to refer to separate things, it becomes harder to communicate and think clearly, which is the point of language.

That's exactly what the term "fake news" was meant to do. To obfuscate. To me, to use the term fake news, I'd be able to describe the majority of news today, including several "trusted news sources." Including "fact checkers." The term as it's being used serves two purposes:

1. In a partisan manner, saying that stories about one candidate (and one candidate only) aren't true. For example, the pizzagate story was considered fake news, but the Trump plane grope wasn't. Both stories are total bullshit, but only one is supposedly "fake news."

2. To legitimize (by contrast) news that is just as dishonest. People point out sites and sources for fake news, to contrast them to trusted or ostensibly honest news like CNN or MSNBC, which is a joke.

 

[Cmart]

I believe what you're describing is commonly referred to as propaganda.

The exact word I used in an earlier post in this thread. Are you trying to nitpick definition differences between propaganda and fake news, or point out some kind of contrast between how they are used? They are much the same in definition, and exactly the same in purpose.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That's exactly what the term "fake news" was meant to do. To obfuscate.

Not at all. It's just a way to talk about a new and disturbing trend. It seems that you don't want people to be able to talk about that stuff (or more likely are unwittingly being used by others who want to prevent discussion of actual fake news). Surely you can accept that there is a distinction between a Macedonian teenager making something up to get hits for his dimestore Website and an actual news organization with a staff of trained journalists and ethics and such that you happen to disagree with, right? It's perfectly fine to criticize real news, but when you conflate it with something that is totally different, you make serious discussion and independent thought more difficult.

You can criticize propaganda, you can call out bias in the news, you can criticize sloppiness with regard to fact checking, etc. But all of those have terms and they are all fundamentally different from fake news, as the term is properly defined.

 

[Cmart]

Not at all. It's just a way to talk about a new and disturbing trend. It seems that you don't want people to be able to talk about that stuff (or more likely are unwittingly being used by others who want to prevent discussion of actual fake news). Surely you can accept that there is a distinction between a Macedonian teenager making something up to get hits for his dimestore Website and an actual news organization with a staff of trained journalists and ethics and such that you happen to disagree with, right? It's perfectly fine to criticize real news, but when you conflate it with something that is totally different, you make serious discussion and independent thought more difficult.

You can criticize propaganda, you can call out bias in the news, you can criticize sloppiness with regard to fact checking, etc. But all of those have terms and they are all fundamentally different from fake news, as the term is properly defined.

I happen to think a site that peddles bullshit -- slanted, incomplete-truth, one-sided bad reporting -- masquerading as a legit news source is more dangerous than some teen on Reddit making up fiction wholesale. It's like buying drugs from a pharmacy or an alley. You expect the drugs from an alley to be sketchy. If the pharmacy is also selling snake oil, that's worse.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I happen to think a site that peddles bullshit -- slanted, incomplete-truth, one-sided bad reporting -- masquerading as a legit news source is more dangerous than some teen on Reddit making up fiction wholesale.

So what? You can criticize that stuff more if you think it's worse. That's not what we're discussing. It's like if someone said, "I happen to think that Alzheimer's is worse than cancer so I'm going to start calling it cancer."

 

[chardog]

I happen to think a site that peddles bullshit -- slanted, incomplete-truth, one-sided bad reporting -- masquerading as a legit news source is more dangerous than some teen on Reddit making up fiction wholesale. It's like buying drugs from a pharmacy or an alley. You expect the drugs from an alley to be sketchy. If the pharmacy is also selling snake oil, that's worse.

hey, you remember all the stories that came out about trump sore winners spreading hate after the election?

those were just "reported" by the MSM on and on and on. Basically, cant be proven or disproven works as legit news. So lesson here is that if you fabricate news, as long as it cant be proven/disproven, it's ok! So fake news that cant be verified = real news! Pizzagate, cant be verified, therefore = real news!

 

[Cmart]

So what? You can criticize that stuff more if you think it's worse. That's not what we're discussing. It's like if someone said, "I happen to think that Alzheimer's is worse than cancer so I'm going to start calling it cancer."

That is an insult to analogies. You know better.

Again, there's a reason to try to draw a distinction between wholly fabricated garbage and the stuff CNN is peddling: it's too make CNN sound legit by comparison. It is not.

If you're going to use the term "fake news," you're going to be forced to include everything that falls under the definition.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That is an insult to analogies. You know better.

Again, there's a reason to try to draw a distinction between wholly fabricated garbage and the stuff CNN is peddling: it's too make CNN sound legit by comparison. It is not.

If you're going to use the term "fake news," you're going to be forced to include everything that falls under the definition.

So in this post, you are admitting exactly what I was saying. You don't want people to be able to discuss what you call "wholly fabricated garbage" on its own. But that's what people are trying to talk about. You're trying to manipulate language to make communication and thought more difficult.

 

[Quipling]

There are 5 kinds of bad news, as I see it.

The first is incorrect predictions. Look at HA Goodman's claims around the NY primary that Bernie would win NY, PA, and Maryland and Hillary would be indicted.

The second is heavily slanted reporting/journalism/editorializing. TYT/Breitbart type stuff.

The third is CT stuff. pizzagate, Sandy Hook false flag, truthers, birtherism. Think Alex Jones.

The fourth is misrepresentation/propoganda: intentionally distorting actual events. For example, claiming that NATO countries building militarily to meet NATO obligations in response to US complaints is antirussia aggression.

The fifth is fake news. This is the people who don't just misrepresent, but invent wholy fictitious accounts and lie about/invent a source. Think "Soros had Craigslist ads hiring protestors for 2300$" from "The Denver Daily Chronicle."


This is further confused by idiots who don't know the difference between talk shows and news anchors.

 

[Thunderflash500]

It has two different meanings and it's used differently. The fake news sources like CNN say it's actual fake news, and then they throw in real news sources they just disagree with. So Breightbart will be mixed in with some guy posting his personal fake news on facebook and both are considered to be fake. The fake news list was started by a crazy cat lady liberal psycho and CNN of course pretends it's a real list. It's an attempt to control the media and an obvious one. They are desperate.

Real news is calling CNN and other mainstreme sources fake news because they got caught working with Democrats to push propaganda. They push fake news to start wars, to further corporate interests, and to confuse and irritate Americans. They have a long history of pushing false stories and working with the CIA to lie to Americans. It's legitimately fake news and propaganda.

 

[Cmart]

So in this post, you are admitting exactly what I was saying. You don't want people to be able to discuss what you call "wholly fabricated garbage" on its own. But that's what people are trying to talk about. You're trying to manipulate language to make communication and thought more difficult.

You're comparing a really good boob job with a crappy, lopsided, scarred-up set of fake tits. Sorry, they're both fake, it's just that it's easier to be fooled by the more professional job.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Like TS said its probably more important to learn to consume media critically but if I had to define fake news I would try to do so very specifically in a way that doesn't just align with what I think bad news is.

I would say fake news is something that is demonstrably false and could not have been reasonably expected to be true by the publisher. If you can prove that the intent of the publisher was to publish something false then that's a slam dunk case of fake news.

 

[deltapapha]

without having read any former posts or any definitions of it online, my own preliminary assessment is that there are 3 classes of fake news:

1. Satirical news (The Onion, Newslo, The Babylon Bee)
2. Conspiracy theory news: George Noory, Art Bell, Alex Jones, etc. (birther, truther, aliens, pizza etc.)
3. The media spin narrative of the Mainstream Media.

The latter of the above three is by far the most dangerous of the fake news purveyors

 

[Jack V Savage]

There are 5 kinds of bad news, as I see it.

The first is incorrect predictions. Look at HA Goodman's claims around the NY primary that Bernie would win NY, PA, and Maryland and Hillary would be indicted.

The second is heavily slanted reporting/journalism/editorializing. TYT/Breitbart type stuff.

The third is CT stuff. pizzagate, Sandy Hook false flag, truthers, birtherism. Think Alex Jones.

The fourth is misrepresentation/propoganda: intentionally distorting actual events. For example, claiming that NATO countries building militarily to meet NATO obligations in response to US complaints is antirussia aggression.

The fifth is fake news. This is the people who don't just misrepresent, but invent wholy fictitious accounts and lie about/invent a source. Think "Soros had Craigslist ads hiring protestors for 2300$" from "The Denver Daily Chronicle."

This is further confused by idiots who don't know the difference between talk shows and news anchors.

I would say "bad analysis" rather than "incorrect predictions" for the first category. Broader category that explains the incorrect predictions (and some incorrect predictions aren't necessarily bad ones). CT stuff can be fake news. If it's based on speculation, it's different. If it's based on someone on a message board somewhere saying something false, it's fake news. But other than that, I think this is spot on.

 

[Quipling]

You're comparing a really good boob job with a crappy, lopsided, scarred-up set of fake tits. Sorry, they're both fake, it's just that it's easier to be fooled by the more professional job.

You're seeing a pair of tits, and deciding they must be fake because you believe the owner voted for Hillary.

 

[WiolentOne]

Racism is racism.

But fake news is not "fake news".

Lol

 

[Cmart]

You're seeing a pair of tits, and deciding they must be fake because you believe the owner voted for Hillary.

Fake is fake. You're saying one set is not as fake as the other, so we should call them real.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Fake news seems like a hip new term for the propaganda that one happens to disagree with.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Fake news seems like a hip new term for the propaganda that one happens to disagree with.

That's how people are trying to spin it so that other people can't discuss actual fake news, which refers to fabricated stuff.

 

[kpt018]

The term refers to shit that's actually made up, like Pizzagate, Soros paying rioters, the pope endorsing Trump, etc.--the kind of stuff you see in chain mails and on Facebook. Propagandists are trying to drain it of meaning by overusing it and using it to refer to anything that doesn't confirm their biases or any error in real news.

This, and I'm a little confused by the question in the OP as this seems fairly obvious (and the TS seems like a smart dude). There is a clear distinction between reporting that tries very hard to get the facts and only reports what they believe to be facts (and has mechanisms in place to ensure of this pursuit) and just making shit up/propaganda pieces.

Sadly there are tons of idiots out there that can't tell the difference due to lack of reasoning ability.