Try to define 'fake news'.

[WiolentOne]

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

Hack B Cabbage probably can't even acknowledge that there is a spectrum of fakeness.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Fake News: Anything the left and globalists do not want you to hear.

strawman

fake news is shit like we saw with the ny post where they claimed el chapo was waging war on isis.

the pope supporting trump

obama is a muslim

 

[Cmart]

Hack B Cabbage probably can't even acknowledge that there is a spectrum of fakeness.

For the record, I do acknowledge that there are degrees of falseness. But, for example, CNN calling anything "fake news" is some thick, rich irony.

 

[deviake]

I know the vast majority of the War Room does not buy the fake news narrative, but let's try to do 'their' job just for the lulz.

I lean liberal on most issues, and I have gotten angry more than once when I had to debunk Daily Mail articles that contained lies and omissions to fit a certain narrative. There is no doubt that some media sources are better than others. And yes, I believe there are outlets that produce fake news.

But I failed hard trying to come up with a definition for 'fake news' that could work. For example, what about Iraq's missiles that were supposed to be able to reach Europe in 45 minutes? What about Iraqi WMD? What about the regrettable false translation that Iran wanted to wipe Israel from the map?

We don't need to combat fake news as much as we need to teach people to critically consume media instead of believing everything they read just because their preferred outlet or one of similar leaning has produced it.

Good points.

Teaching people to think critically and question authority is big, and gets at the root of the problem instead of merely dealing with the symptoms. It should be taught in schools very early on.

In any event, 'fake news' could be defined in more than one way. The obvious black-and-white definition, is simply news that is fake, like The Onion or various sites that put out exclusively fake content to fool people.

Then there's 'fake news' like a lot of the mainstream media, which may report some facts, but skew them, paint a certain narrative, or avoid talking about certain issues due to xyz reasons, such as being beholden to the people who supply their revenue (corporate interests).

 

[JDragon]

When I took journalism in college many years ago, we were taught to report by getting the who, what, where, when, and why, and to relay that to the reader/viewer/listener as succinctly and descriptively as possible without coloring that information with our opinion. Opinion didn't have a place in news. Opinion was for the editorial page.

What passes for current "news" bears little resemblance to this.

"Fake news" is at this point either just a redundant term due to the editorialization and slant that is embedded in most stories, or even worse, also factually inaccurate. So basically fiction, or propaganda. Stories meant to entertain, or grab attention just to generate revenue (clickbait) or meant to sway opinion.

This unbiased reporting of the facts works when you are reporting on traffic accidents and library openings in Springfield, Kentucky. It quickly ends when dealing with highly controversial issues. Say we know a bomb goes off in Iraq and many people die. The group responsible is known. But what are they? Insurgents? Terrorists? Criminals? You get the drift.

Good points.

Teaching people to think critically and question authority is big, and gets at the root of the problem instead of merely dealing with the symptoms. It should be taught in schools very early on.

In any event, 'fake news' could be defined in more than one way. The obvious black-and-white definition, is simply news that is fake, like The Onion or various sites that put out exclusively fake content to fool people.

Then there's 'fake news' like a lot of the mainstream media, which may report some facts, but skew them, paint a certain narrative, or avoid talking about certain issues due to xyz reasons, such as being beholden to the people who supply their revenue (corporate interests).

Good point about The Onion. Fighting fake news with laws could inadvertently put them out of business.

 

[Cmart]

This unbiased reporting of the facts works when you are reporting on traffic accidents and library openings in Springfield, Kentucky. It quickly ends when dealing with highly controversial issues. Say we know a bomb goes off in Iraq and many people die. The group responsible is known. But what are they? Insurgents? Terrorists? Criminals? You get the drift.

That's what investigative journalism is for.

 

[Fawlty]

media did perpetuate hands up dont shoot....



it's really no different than pizzagate conspiracy in the way it spread.... pizzagate just a theory, not even a mainstream one, hands up dont shoot completely debunked.

That's more them falling for a narrative that fit their bias. Hands Up was an actual thing- a real human witness actually spread that lie and it caught on throughout the country because of problems with police. It wasn't fake. Pizzagate is fake- it's a social media hoax. The media were stupid for believing the Hands Up lie. They didn't invent it.

 

[Fawlty]

What's frustrating is that the term was created to describe a real thing that is a problem--people making shit up for clicks that fools partisans because they want it to be true. But just a short time later, thanks to deliberate propaganda, you have people who define it as real news that they consider to be biased, and thus it has again become difficult to talk about the initial problem. This is an assault on independent thought.

You can see from the thread replies how far people are gone. It's astounding.

 

[SMEAC]

That's more them falling for a narrative that fit their bias. Hands Up was an actual thing- a real human witness actually spread that lie and it caught on throughout the country because of problems with police. It wasn't fake. Pizzagate is fake- it's a social media hoax. The media were stupid for believing the Hands Up lie. They didn't invent it.

The emails are fake?

Try a better analogy than pizzagate if you want to have a point for once

 

[WiolentOne]

You can see from the thread replies how far people are gone. It's astounding.

Take a look through your post history and you'll see the same.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I know the vast majority of the War Room does not buy the fake news narrative, but let's try to do 'their' job just for the lulz.

I lean liberal on most issues, and I have gotten angry more than once when I had to debunk Daily Mail articles that contained lies and omissions to fit a certain narrative. There is no doubt that some media sources are better than others. And yes, I believe there are outlets that produce fake news.

But I failed hard trying to come up with a definition for 'fake news' that could work. For example, what about Iraq's missiles that were supposed to be able to reach Europe in 45 minutes? What about Iraqi WMD? What about the regrettable false translation that Iran wanted to wipe Israel from the map?

We don't need to combat fake news as much as we need to teach people to critically consume media instead of believing everything they read just because their preferred outlet or one of similar leaning has produced it.

Welcome to 1984.

 

[pinger]

This is perhaps the biggest problem in the US, where the news seems to have lost it's objectivity (Fox v CNN).

 

[Fluffernutter]

"Remember the Maine!"

 

[Satanical Eve]

Fake news for me is information that is completely made up. For instance the lie that keeps being purported that Trump won the popular vote as well.