How Big Is The Fake News Problem?
Discussion
I don't think it is a big issue. News should always be considered partially fake if you ask me. The few times something reported in the news was describing an event I knew becuase I was personally involved in some way I noticed that the report was inaccurate or totally wrong or false.
The real 'issue' here is that the establishment is losing control of the narrative that they push via the mainstream media.
People are quite rightly cottoning on to what a load of selective and skewed 'reporting' they are fed and starting to consider alternative sources.
It's not that the alternative sources are being treated as completely credible by the public, the 'problem' is that they are being put on a comparable level of credibility/ scepticism as the mainstream. If you're used to being able to control public opinion via well placed media stories, having widely disseminated alternative viewpoints being 'consumed' too is a big problem for you. Hence the whole 'fake news' thing, an excuse to try to block alternative sources and make people believe that only the mainstream can be trusted.
People are quite rightly cottoning on to what a load of selective and skewed 'reporting' they are fed and starting to consider alternative sources.
It's not that the alternative sources are being treated as completely credible by the public, the 'problem' is that they are being put on a comparable level of credibility/ scepticism as the mainstream. If you're used to being able to control public opinion via well placed media stories, having widely disseminated alternative viewpoints being 'consumed' too is a big problem for you. Hence the whole 'fake news' thing, an excuse to try to block alternative sources and make people believe that only the mainstream can be trusted.
I think that Fake News is a major problem.
The "quality" news sources are beginning to print bulls
t in search of a clickbait headline, even if their article immediately says something else the damage is done. Idiots then repeat it. Then it becomes "true".
When bullst is "true" the idiots can be persuaded to do anything.
Very, very worrying.
The "quality" news sources are beginning to print bulls
t in search of a clickbait headline, even if their article immediately says something else the damage is done. Idiots then repeat it. Then it becomes "true".When bulls
t is "true" the idiots can be persuaded to do anything. Very, very worrying.
Don said:
I think that Fake News is a major problem.
The "quality" news sources are beginning to print bullst in search of a clickbait headline, even if their article immediately says something else the damage is done. Idiots then repeat it. Then it becomes "true".
When bullst is "true" the idiots can be persuaded to do anything.
Very, very worrying.
This is nothing new .. it's just that it has become really obvious in recent months now that the attention of the public is on the quality and veracity of news.The "quality" news sources are beginning to print bulls
t in search of a clickbait headline, even if their article immediately says something else the damage is done. Idiots then repeat it. Then it becomes "true".When bulls
t is "true" the idiots can be persuaded to do anything. Very, very worrying.
Take the totally BS story about 'Russians hacking the Vermont power grid'. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny but the whole objective is to get the 'talking point' out there. Everyone sees the headline (as all the other mainstream sources quickly pick it up and run with it) but very few see the retraction that they are inevitably forced to issue as the story is picked apart by journalists with integrity.
The whole US election campaign coverage and 'polls' were unbelievably amateurishly spun by the mainstream to favour the establishment view, and Trumps landslide victory made that obvious.
As was Brexit.
As was the Scottish Independence coverage.
People just aren't swallowing the bilge that the corporate and state media puts out, like they used to.
Lucas Ayde said:
The real 'issue' here is that the establishment is losing control of the narrative that they push via the mainstream media.
That's it in a nutshell.This goes on a lot in sport. There was a case of a football manager wanting to control how newspapers reported. He refused to speak with an outlet that he took exception to. We had it in F1 as well. A well respected commentator upset some amateur who was in charge of the sport and he was threatened with what would have amounted to loss of employment. The threat was withdrawn but the person who wanted to control what was written won. Anyone else wanting to expose any improper actions by the person would have been cognisant of the fact that his/her job would be under threat. Further, any outlet would also be concerned.
There was an article on an F1 website I favoured in which it was mentioned that press passes could be used as a control of reporting. The author's contributions to the site suddenly became less frequent and the website became the mouthpiece for another of those in control of the sport.
I don't know if this was connected in any way. Further, a few months later I tried to find the article but it had mysteriously disappeared.
The government feeds news outlets with little tidbits of information, on the face of it out of a feeling of generosity. I wonder if an outlet which failed to follow the corporate line would still be on the list of recipients.
I've been involved in an incident which was reported on a TV programme some 15 hours later. I was listening to it with some concentration and then, when they introduced their informant, I realised they were talking about 'my' job. The TV station must have know it was all rubbish but, as they said, the police refused to comment - they had their sources - so they threw rubbish at the feet of the viewer. It is a wonder they got the day right.
I was speaking to a person who was involved in a major crime enquiry. There was lots of criticism in the press and the government set up an 'independent' enquiry led by a friend of the then PM. My informant was criticised in the conclusion for circumstances that had not occurred and also for some which had, but she was unable to complete her task due to actions by the complainant. She had reported to a supervisory officer who had told her to stand down. When I asked her what she had put in her statement to the enquiry, she said that she had not been asked to supply one.
The reason for that omission was, I bet, that they didn't want to know that the criticisms were wrong. Only a PC's career was sacrificed and the press got their story. What's not to like?
We have no idea what's really going on. There's honest reporting out there but our own prejudices and the tactics of those who don't want us to know what we really want to know in case we really want to know it. I think that's what I mean.
Oddly, It doesn't stop me having opinions despite knowing that they are all at it.
Lucas Ayde said:
The whole US election campaign coverage and 'polls' were unbelievably amateurishly spun by the mainstream to favour the establishment view, and Trumps landslide victory made that obvious.
As was Brexit.
As was the Scottish Independence coverage.
People just aren't swallowing the bilge that the corporate and state media puts out, like they used to.
Is this a genuine post? Clinton won more votes of 'the people. while Trump got in via the electoral college - surely more establishment than popular. Hardly a landslide in any case, as fewer than a quarter of the electorate voted for Trump.As was Brexit.
As was the Scottish Independence coverage.
People just aren't swallowing the bilge that the corporate and state media puts out, like they used to.
Am I due a parrot?
Tryke3 said:
I am seriously depressed that people seem to think 90% of the news from reputable sources are lies
The mainstream media reports on every event I have been involved in that merited a response disagreed fundamentally with what I saw.So 100% in my case.
I know what you are saying but what the suggestion is, I think, is to keep an open mind.
I worked alongside a chap who was exposed on TV as jumping up and down on an innocent person in a riot. Twenty minutes, with his name in lights, concentrated on his criminal activities. He was suspended for over a year. When the investigation finished it proved that he was innocent, indeed was sitting in a vehicle all the time, which was proved by CCTV.
He was given his choice of career - dog handler - but wouldn't be allowed to go to it if he sued the company that made the programme.
He transferred forces as he was well known in his are.
There was nothing on TV to say that the programme was talking rubbish.
Tryke3 said:
I am seriously depressed that people seem to think 90% of the news from reputable sources are lies
No, not lies. The current trick is a Clickbait headline. The headline is misleading and disingenuous at best, utter lies at worst. Enraged/Disgusted/Intrigued the user clicks on it only to find that the headline is bullst, and the story is actually quite different. It's a commercial pressure to show as many ads as possible - even if it means "sexing up" the truth. The incompetent buffoons who write this stuff now though don't seem to have the talent of the old tabloid editors and when they "sex up" they just end up lying.
I find this irritating (at best) but despair when I see social media posts reiterating not the true story, but the "sexed up" lie that was the headline.
Social Media spreads the lie.
Then some racist t
t thinks he's justified in stabbing some poor MP.I can't connect the two directly. But the a
hole who stabbed Jo Cox quoted Britain First, who spread vile and untrue messages via Facebook, their memes masquerading as things decent folk could agree with.Do not share bulls
t.Do not like bulls
t.Never cut and paste bulls
t.And check whether it's bulls
t before posting.What the "quality" sources are doing is bad, but what the social media bulls
tters are doing is utterly reprehensible.All IMO, of course, YMMV.
Don said:
Tryke3 said:
I am seriously depressed that people seem to think 90% of the news from reputable sources are lies
No, not lies. The current trick is a Clickbait headline. The headline is misleading and disingenuous at best, utter lies at worst. Enraged/Disgusted/Intrigued the user clicks on it only to find that the headline is bullst, and the story is actually quite different. It's a commercial pressure to show as many ads as possible - even if it means "sexing up" the truth. The incompetent buffoons who write this stuff now though don't seem to have the talent of the old tabloid editors and when they "sex up" they just end up lying.
I find this irritating (at best) but despair when I see social media posts reiterating not the true story, but the "sexed up" lie that was the headline.
Social Media spreads the lie.
Then some racist t
t thinks he's justified in stabbing some poor MP.I can't connect the two directly. But the a
hole who stabbed Jo Cox quoted Britain First, who spread vile and untrue messages via Facebook, their memes masquerading as things decent folk could agree with.Do not share bulls
t.Do not like bulls
t.Never cut and paste bulls
t.And check whether it's bulls
t before posting.What the "quality" sources are doing is bad, but what the social media bulls
tters are doing is utterly reprehensible.All IMO, of course, YMMV.
My gran who is 82 and has been an accountant all her life believes everything she reads on the internet, addicted to facebook and somehow shes allowed to vote ffs
Derek Smith said:
Tryke3 said:
I am seriously depressed that people seem to think 90% of the news from reputable sources are lies
The mainstream media reports on every event I have been involved in that merited a response disagreed fundamentally with what I saw.So 100% in my case.
I know what you are saying but what the suggestion is, I think, is to keep an open mind.
I worked alongside a chap who was exposed on TV as jumping up and down on an innocent person in a riot. Twenty minutes, with his name in lights, concentrated on his criminal activities. He was suspended for over a year. When the investigation finished it proved that he was innocent, indeed was sitting in a vehicle all the time, which was proved by CCTV.
He was given his choice of career - dog handler - but wouldn't be allowed to go to it if he sued the company that made the programme.
He transferred forces as he was well known in his are.
There was nothing on TV to say that the programme was talking rubbish.
Jasandjules said:
And who decides what is real news? Whoever pays the most?
The Global Warming scam has "settled science" and is a "fact" reported by "proper" news.. Yet I believe it not.
Don't believe the news. Go educate yourself. The Global Warming scam has "settled science" and is a "fact" reported by "proper" news.. Yet I believe it not.
Start with Astronomy, and look what a Carbon Dioxide rich atmosphere has done to Venus.
Then move to Chemistry and understand how and why Carbon Dioxide causes a warming effect.
Then go look at Geology, and understand why we know the climate is warming at a dramatic rate that cannot be simply explained as natural change.
Tryke3 said:
A riot situation is not a good example, sometimes the police go on eye witness account and they can be wrong
This case is an excellent example of why you should not trust the news outlets. He was on CCTV, as I pointed out. The prison van turned up, the PC stayed in the van until the prisoner was brought to him. He opened the rear doors, assisted the person to get in - he was already suffering from injuries received from other demonstrators. He then drove off.
The accusation was from an eyewitness.
The injuries could not have been caused in the manner described, as the briefest of glances at the medical report would have shown or, more likely the PC felt, did show to the programme producers. He believed that he was the victim of a hatchet job.
At the same riot a police Land Rover drove into a demonstrator pinning him against a wall. The programme, which ran for an hour, covered this but details were sparse and there was airtime to make up. Rather than vox pop they went for something which would condemn the officers in the first instance by association, or at least that's what the officer believed and there was a lot to support his point of view.
It was a callous attempt, successful I would assume, to show to the public that criminal behaviour was endemic in the service. One could be a bad apple. With lots (or at least two, although the suggestion was that this was the tip of the iceberg) there could be no argument.
As I said, the officer was suspended for over a year despite it being clear from the earliest stage that he could not have caused the injuries in the manner described, and particularly that he had suffered them before he was put in the van and before his arrest.
I have no idea why the PC was 'encouraged' not to sue the programme makers. He on the other hand did have his suspicions but had no proof.
It was inexcusable behaviour by the tv programme makers. They published no correction. Those who watched the programme will be convinced that the officer had assaulted a prisoner by jumping up and down on his chest while he was prone in the gutter, and that such behaviour was common in the particular police force.
An excellent example of why you should not believe what you read, or see in the media.
It wasn't even political bias, nor was there any anti police prejudice. They needed to fill a gap and this bit of invention was just the right length.
BlackLabel said:
Seems like the Germans are taking it very seriously.
German officials have proposed creating a special government unit to combat fake news in the run-up to next year's general election, reports say. A document quoted by the Spiegel news website calls for an "anti-disinformation centre" in Chancellor Angela Merkel's administration.
Germany reacts to misleading 'Breitbart' New Year's Eve report. The right-wing publication has falsely reported that Arab men set fire to Germany's oldest church while shouting "God is great." Dortmund police described the evening as "rather average to quiet."
Germany has threatened to crack down on the fake news scandal plaguing Facebook by levying hefty fines for posts that aren't removed immediately amid mounting fears that disinformation could influence the country's upcoming elections. The head of Germany's second-biggest political party has suggested Facebook could face fines of up to €500,000 (£419,000) for each post containing fake news or hate speech that isn't removed from the network within 24 hours.
It always amazes me how many otherwise-intelligent people share such health/medical crap on Facebook.
The widespread circulation of fake health news on social networks is misleading and potentially dangerous, health officials have warned. Misinformation published by conspiracy sites about serious health conditions is often shared more widely than evidence-based reports from reputable news organisations, according to analysis by The Independent. Of the 20 most-shared articles on Facebook in 2016 with the word “cancer” in the headline, more than half purport claims discredited by doctors and health authorities or – in the case of the year’s top story – directly by the source cited in the article.
Given how long Germany denied and tried to cover up the NYE sexual assaults, last year, if the 1000 men had set fire to Germany's oldest church, would the authorities admit it?German officials have proposed creating a special government unit to combat fake news in the run-up to next year's general election, reports say. A document quoted by the Spiegel news website calls for an "anti-disinformation centre" in Chancellor Angela Merkel's administration.
Germany reacts to misleading 'Breitbart' New Year's Eve report. The right-wing publication has falsely reported that Arab men set fire to Germany's oldest church while shouting "God is great." Dortmund police described the evening as "rather average to quiet."
Germany has threatened to crack down on the fake news scandal plaguing Facebook by levying hefty fines for posts that aren't removed immediately amid mounting fears that disinformation could influence the country's upcoming elections. The head of Germany's second-biggest political party has suggested Facebook could face fines of up to €500,000 (£419,000) for each post containing fake news or hate speech that isn't removed from the network within 24 hours.
It always amazes me how many otherwise-intelligent people share such health/medical crap on Facebook.
The widespread circulation of fake health news on social networks is misleading and potentially dangerous, health officials have warned. Misinformation published by conspiracy sites about serious health conditions is often shared more widely than evidence-based reports from reputable news organisations, according to analysis by The Independent. Of the 20 most-shared articles on Facebook in 2016 with the word “cancer” in the headline, more than half purport claims discredited by doctors and health authorities or – in the case of the year’s top story – directly by the source cited in the article.
I'm sure Rotherham Social Services and Yorkshire Police will be claiming Fake News on a daily basis.
esxste said:
Don't believe the news. Go educate yourself.
Start with Astronomy, and look what a Carbon Dioxide rich atmosphere has done to Venus.
Then move to Chemistry and understand how and why Carbon Dioxide causes a warming effect.
Then go look at Geology, and understand why we know the climate is warming at a dramatic rate that cannot be simply explained as natural change.
Check the pressure of the Venus atmosphere and determine that at 1 atmosphere there is no "runaway warming" . Look at the physics and determine that IR radiation at 15 micron levels is unable to change the kinetic energy of gaseous CO2 (temperature of a gas is its kinetic energy and not its vibration energy).Start with Astronomy, and look what a Carbon Dioxide rich atmosphere has done to Venus.
Then move to Chemistry and understand how and why Carbon Dioxide causes a warming effect.
Then go look at Geology, and understand why we know the climate is warming at a dramatic rate that cannot be simply explained as natural change.
Look at the geology properly and determine the temperature has been higher before, CO2 has been higher before and the rate of change is nothing special (heck no different than the rate of change early last century before any CO2 effect was even theoretically possible) .
Look at GW theory - see that without the proven non-existant "positive" feed-backs the maximum temperature change of doubling CO2 is 1 degree, then you see that there is no CAGW and the AGW if measurable would be a benefit to life on earth.
It is no longer 1988 and James Hansen has been proven wrong.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff