How Big Is The Fake News Problem?

[scherzkeks]

dandarez said:

Greg66 said:

rscott said:

Man creates fake news site with extreme anti-Obama/Clinton stories and discovers there are no limits to what some Americans will believe.. .

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/u...

Good God.

I'd be not at all surprised to learn that those same gullible idiots will flatly disregard any genuine fact that is adverse to Trump.

Mentalists.

Says Bakeside, someone who relies on the Indie for 'news'!

Fake News is new is it?
Fake News is just new slang for propaganda. Been going on for donkey years. That's the intention of propaganda.

Bliar took us to war using fake news. Hermann Göring had a whale of a time using it.
It's nothing new.

Nothing changes.
Except sometimes terminology used.

The gullible are always there. They always have been. On both sides.

That's why propaganda fake news is used.

How long till 'Truth News'?


Oh yeah, Greg, which God is Good?

You omitted to say.

With regards to the bolded portion: you joke, but it would appear that even a fellow critical thinker such as yourself may have missed this:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/29/obamas-chri...

Edited by scherzkeks on Monday 13th March 11:09

[rscott]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Greg66 said:

rscott said:

Man creates fake news site with extreme anti-Obama/Clinton stories and discovers there are no limits to what some Americans will believe.. .

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/u...

Good God.

I'd be not at all surprised to learn that those same gullible idiots will flatly disregard any genuine fact that is adverse to Trump.

Mentalists.

As mental as believing that people believed and were not just playing along, just because the people that set up the fake bait say so - probably.

No need for fake stories anyway, the truth about Clinton/Obama is bad enough, the hacks showed how dirty they both are, that's why the MSM created a controversy over the hacking/Russians instead of examining the actual emails and the actual lack of integrity in their behaviour.

Of course they're all playing along. Just like the #MAGA mob on Twitter are playing along too and aren't 100% Trump believers...

You're saying we shoud ignore the controversy over Russian connections and illegal hacks/leaks and concentrate on the behaviour? Not sure Trump and his team would agree with that.

[rscott]

Classic example of truly fake news, as opposed to bias/propaganda, was the Baltimore Gazette website. This appeared mid way through the US election campaign using the original paper's letterhead and claiming to be one of the oldest daily papers in the US.
It ran believable local news stories, but kept updating the dates on them so it appeared to be publishing recent news. It would then publish a few extremely anti-Clinton, utterly fake stories ( eg http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-baltimor... ).

[scherzkeks]

rscott said:

Classic example of truly fake news, as opposed to bias/propaganda, was the Baltimore Gazette website. This appeared mid way through the US election campaign using the original paper's letterhead and claiming to be one of the oldest daily papers in the US.
It ran believable local news stories, but kept updating the dates on them so it appeared to be publishing recent news. It would then publish a few extremely anti-Clinton, utterly fake stories ( eg http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-baltimor... ).

Another classic example is buried in the HP article itself. HC did get questions in advance for the debate from CNN/Donna Brasile. Confirmed by Wikileaks.

"Reporting" like this leads me to question whether the BG was a David Brock creation to begin with. Fake news reporting on fake news.

Good job.

[rscott]

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

Classic example of truly fake news, as opposed to bias/propaganda, was the Baltimore Gazette website. This appeared mid way through the US election campaign using the original paper's letterhead and claiming to be one of the oldest daily papers in the US.
It ran believable local news stories, but kept updating the dates on them so it appeared to be publishing recent news. It would then publish a few extremely anti-Clinton, utterly fake stories ( eg http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-baltimor... ).

Another classic example is buried in the HP article itself. HC did get questions in advance for the debate from CNN/Donna Brasile. Confirmed by Wikileaks.

"Reporting" like this leads me to question whether the BG was a David Brock creation to begin with. Fake news reporting on fake news.

Good job.

To use your favourite term, "triggered" . There are plenty of articles about the BG - didn't you wonder why i quoted the HuffPo..

The BG article was a complete fake with a tale about questions for a debate arriving via courier.

http://lunaticoutpost.com/thread-692501.html

[RumbleOfThunder]

rscott said:

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

Classic example of truly fake news, as opposed to bias/propaganda, was the Baltimore Gazette website. This appeared mid way through the US election campaign using the original paper's letterhead and claiming to be one of the oldest daily papers in the US.
It ran believable local news stories, but kept updating the dates on them so it appeared to be publishing recent news. It would then publish a few extremely anti-Clinton, utterly fake stories ( eg http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-baltimor... ).

Another classic example is buried in the HP article itself. HC did get questions in advance for the debate from CNN/Donna Brasile. Confirmed by Wikileaks.

"Reporting" like this leads me to question whether the BG was a David Brock creation to begin with. Fake news reporting on fake news.

Good job.

To use your favourite term, "triggered" . There are plenty of articles about the BG - didn't you wonder why i quoted the HuffPo..

The BG article was a complete fake with a tale about questions for a debate arriving via courier.

http://lunaticoutpost.com/thread-692501.html

So the method of delivery was the fake bit? I've read worse this year.

[rscott]

RumbleOfThunder said:

rscott said:

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

Classic example of truly fake news, as opposed to bias/propaganda, was the Baltimore Gazette website. This appeared mid way through the US election campaign using the original paper's letterhead and claiming to be one of the oldest daily papers in the US.
It ran believable local news stories, but kept updating the dates on them so it appeared to be publishing recent news. It would then publish a few extremely anti-Clinton, utterly fake stories ( eg http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-baltimor... ).

Another classic example is buried in the HP article itself. HC did get questions in advance for the debate from CNN/Donna Brasile. Confirmed by Wikileaks.

"Reporting" like this leads me to question whether the BG was a David Brock creation to begin with. Fake news reporting on fake news.

Good job.

To use your favourite term, "triggered" . There are plenty of articles about the BG - didn't you wonder why i quoted the HuffPo..

The BG article was a complete fake with a tale about questions for a debate arriving via courier.

http://lunaticoutpost.com/thread-692501.html

So the method of delivery was the fake bit? I've read worse this year.

It was actually about a completely different debate - Brazile leaked the questions for a town hall debate during the primaries, the BG article claimed that the questions for one of the presidential debates were leaked by courier to HC's team. Web Archive of the post - http://web.archive.org/web/20160929221119/http://b... .

[scherzkeks]

rscott said:

RumbleOfThunder said:

rscott said:

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

Classic example of truly fake news, as opposed to bias/propaganda, was the Baltimore Gazette website. This appeared mid way through the US election campaign using the original paper's letterhead and claiming to be one of the oldest daily papers in the US.
It ran believable local news stories, but kept updating the dates on them so it appeared to be publishing recent news. It would then publish a few extremely anti-Clinton, utterly fake stories ( eg http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-baltimor... ).

Another classic example is buried in the HP article itself. HC did get questions in advance for the debate from CNN/Donna Brasile. Confirmed by Wikileaks.

"Reporting" like this leads me to question whether the BG was a David Brock creation to begin with. Fake news reporting on fake news.

Good job.

To use your favourite term, "triggered" . There are plenty of articles about the BG - didn't you wonder why i quoted the HuffPo..

The BG article was a complete fake with a tale about questions for a debate arriving via courier.

http://lunaticoutpost.com/thread-692501.html

So the method of delivery was the fake bit? I've read worse this year.

It was actually about a completely different debate - Brazile leaked the questions for a town hall debate during the primaries, the BG article claimed that the questions for one of the presidential debates were leaked by courier to HC's team. Web Archive of the post - http://web.archive.org/web/20160929221119/http://b... .

Allow me to spell things out for you. With this statement: "Nevertheless, a story about Clinton getting the debate questions ahead of time? Fake news site or no, you’d have to be a complete idiot to believe..." the HuffPost blogger is attempting to broadly associate the idea that HRC received debate questions in advance with "fake" news.

The average Facetweeting knee-jerk HuffPost reader then assumes that all reporting on HRC receiving debate questions in advance is a lie.

While I appreciate that only Facetweeting millenial types will fall for this, we should still call out this sort of thing, no matter how poor the effort.

[rscott]

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

RumbleOfThunder said:

rscott said:

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

Classic example of truly fake news, as opposed to bias/propaganda, was the Baltimore Gazette website. This appeared mid way through the US election campaign using the original paper's letterhead and claiming to be one of the oldest daily papers in the US.
It ran believable local news stories, but kept updating the dates on them so it appeared to be publishing recent news. It would then publish a few extremely anti-Clinton, utterly fake stories ( eg http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-baltimor... ).

Another classic example is buried in the HP article itself. HC did get questions in advance for the debate from CNN/Donna Brasile. Confirmed by Wikileaks.

"Reporting" like this leads me to question whether the BG was a David Brock creation to begin with. Fake news reporting on fake news.

Good job.

To use your favourite term, "triggered" . There are plenty of articles about the BG - didn't you wonder why i quoted the HuffPo..

The BG article was a complete fake with a tale about questions for a debate arriving via courier.

http://lunaticoutpost.com/thread-692501.html

So the method of delivery was the fake bit? I've read worse this year.

It was actually about a completely different debate - Brazile leaked the questions for a town hall debate during the primaries, the BG article claimed that the questions for one of the presidential debates were leaked by courier to HC's team. Web Archive of the post - http://web.archive.org/web/20160929221119/http://b... .

Allow me to spell things out for you. With this statement: "Nevertheless, a story about Clinton getting the debate questions ahead of time? Fake news site or no, you’d have to be a complete idiot to believe..." the HuffPost blogger is attempting to broadly associate the idea that HRC received debate questions in advance with "fake" news.

The average Facetweeting knee-jerk HuffPost reader then assumes that all reporting on HRC receiving debate questions in advance is a lie.

While I appreciate that only Facetweeting millenial types will fall for this, we should still call out this sort of thing, no matter how poor the effort.

It must be strange living in your world where words change their meaning as they pass from the screen, through your eyes and into your brain.

Forget the conclusion of the HuffPo story and consider the basic facts about that site. It contained a completely fake story, with no supporting evidence or references, which claimed Clinton's team received the questions for the Presidential debate ahead of time. Would you agree that the story on the BG has no evidence whatsoever to support it's claims?

[scherzkeks]

rscott said:

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

RumbleOfThunder said:

rscott said:

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

Classic example of truly fake news, as opposed to bias/propaganda, was the Baltimore Gazette website. This appeared mid way through the US election campaign using the original paper's letterhead and claiming to be one of the oldest daily papers in the US.
It ran believable local news stories, but kept updating the dates on them so it appeared to be publishing recent news. It would then publish a few extremely anti-Clinton, utterly fake stories ( eg http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-baltimor... ).

Another classic example is buried in the HP article itself. HC did get questions in advance for the debate from CNN/Donna Brasile. Confirmed by Wikileaks.

"Reporting" like this leads me to question whether the BG was a David Brock creation to begin with. Fake news reporting on fake news.

Good job.

To use your favourite term, "triggered" . There are plenty of articles about the BG - didn't you wonder why i quoted the HuffPo..

The BG article was a complete fake with a tale about questions for a debate arriving via courier.

http://lunaticoutpost.com/thread-692501.html

So the method of delivery was the fake bit? I've read worse this year.

It was actually about a completely different debate - Brazile leaked the questions for a town hall debate during the primaries, the BG article claimed that the questions for one of the presidential debates were leaked by courier to HC's team. Web Archive of the post - http://web.archive.org/web/20160929221119/http://b... .

Allow me to spell things out for you. With this statement: "Nevertheless, a story about Clinton getting the debate questions ahead of time? Fake news site or no, you’d have to be a complete idiot to believe..." the HuffPost blogger is attempting to broadly associate the idea that HRC received debate questions in advance with "fake" news.

The average Facetweeting knee-jerk HuffPost reader then assumes that all reporting on HRC receiving debate questions in advance is a lie.

While I appreciate that only Facetweeting millenial types will fall for this, we should still call out this sort of thing, no matter how poor the effort.

It must be strange living in your world where words change their meaning as they pass from the screen, through your eyes and into your brain.

Forget the conclusion of the HuffPo story and consider the basic facts about that site. It contained a completely fake story, with no supporting evidence or references, which claimed Clinton's team received the questions for the Presidential debate ahead of time. Would you agree that the story on the BG has no evidence whatsoever to support it's claims?

My point isn't and wasn't about the BG story itself, but rather how it was used. This is like talking to a wall.

[rscott]

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

RumbleOfThunder said:

rscott said:

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

Classic example of truly fake news, as opposed to bias/propaganda, was the Baltimore Gazette website. This appeared mid way through the US election campaign using the original paper's letterhead and claiming to be one of the oldest daily papers in the US.
It ran believable local news stories, but kept updating the dates on them so it appeared to be publishing recent news. It would then publish a few extremely anti-Clinton, utterly fake stories ( eg http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-baltimor... ).

Another classic example is buried in the HP article itself. HC did get questions in advance for the debate from CNN/Donna Brasile. Confirmed by Wikileaks.

"Reporting" like this leads me to question whether the BG was a David Brock creation to begin with. Fake news reporting on fake news.

Good job.

To use your favourite term, "triggered" . There are plenty of articles about the BG - didn't you wonder why i quoted the HuffPo..

The BG article was a complete fake with a tale about questions for a debate arriving via courier.

http://lunaticoutpost.com/thread-692501.html

So the method of delivery was the fake bit? I've read worse this year.

It was actually about a completely different debate - Brazile leaked the questions for a town hall debate during the primaries, the BG article claimed that the questions for one of the presidential debates were leaked by courier to HC's team. Web Archive of the post - http://web.archive.org/web/20160929221119/http://b... .

Allow me to spell things out for you. With this statement: "Nevertheless, a story about Clinton getting the debate questions ahead of time? Fake news site or no, you’d have to be a complete idiot to believe..." the HuffPost blogger is attempting to broadly associate the idea that HRC received debate questions in advance with "fake" news.

The average Facetweeting knee-jerk HuffPost reader then assumes that all reporting on HRC receiving debate questions in advance is a lie.

While I appreciate that only Facetweeting millenial types will fall for this, we should still call out this sort of thing, no matter how poor the effort.

It must be strange living in your world where words change their meaning as they pass from the screen, through your eyes and into your brain.

Forget the conclusion of the HuffPo story and consider the basic facts about that site. It contained a completely fake story, with no supporting evidence or references, which claimed Clinton's team received the questions for the Presidential debate ahead of time. Would you agree that the story on the BG has no evidence whatsoever to support it's claims?

My point isn't and wasn't about the BG story itself, but rather how it was used. This is like talking to a wall.

Funny - my point was about the existence (or otherwise) of the BG . Huff Po was simply used because it had a clear summary of the fake story. However you choose to ignore the larger point - that someone is prepared to set up a completely fake website, spending time & money to make it appear a genuine news outlet, just to publish completely fake news stories.

[BlackLabel]

Poor James II had a problem with fake news too.

[scherzkeks]

rscott said:

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

RumbleOfThunder said:

rscott said:

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

Classic example of truly fake news, as opposed to bias/propaganda, was the Baltimore Gazette website. This appeared mid way through the US election campaign using the original paper's letterhead and claiming to be one of the oldest daily papers in the US.
It ran believable local news stories, but kept updating the dates on them so it appeared to be publishing recent news. It would then publish a few extremely anti-Clinton, utterly fake stories ( eg http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-baltimor... ).

Another classic example is buried in the HP article itself. HC did get questions in advance for the debate from CNN/Donna Brasile. Confirmed by Wikileaks.

"Reporting" like this leads me to question whether the BG was a David Brock creation to begin with. Fake news reporting on fake news.

Good job.

To use your favourite term, "triggered" . There are plenty of articles about the BG - didn't you wonder why i quoted the HuffPo..

The BG article was a complete fake with a tale about questions for a debate arriving via courier.

http://lunaticoutpost.com/thread-692501.html

So the method of delivery was the fake bit? I've read worse this year.

It was actually about a completely different debate - Brazile leaked the questions for a town hall debate during the primaries, the BG article claimed that the questions for one of the presidential debates were leaked by courier to HC's team. Web Archive of the post - http://web.archive.org/web/20160929221119/http://b... .

Allow me to spell things out for you. With this statement: "Nevertheless, a story about Clinton getting the debate questions ahead of time? Fake news site or no, you’d have to be a complete idiot to believe..." the HuffPost blogger is attempting to broadly associate the idea that HRC received debate questions in advance with "fake" news.

The average Facetweeting knee-jerk HuffPost reader then assumes that all reporting on HRC receiving debate questions in advance is a lie.

While I appreciate that only Facetweeting millenial types will fall for this, we should still call out this sort of thing, no matter how poor the effort.

It must be strange living in your world where words change their meaning as they pass from the screen, through your eyes and into your brain.

Forget the conclusion of the HuffPo story and consider the basic facts about that site. It contained a completely fake story, with no supporting evidence or references, which claimed Clinton's team received the questions for the Presidential debate ahead of time. Would you agree that the story on the BG has no evidence whatsoever to support it's claims?

My point isn't and wasn't about the BG story itself, but rather how it was used. This is like talking to a wall.

Funny - my point was about the existence (or otherwise) of the BG . Huff Po was simply used because it had a clear summary of the fake story. However you choose to ignore the larger point - that someone is prepared to set up a completely fake website, spending time & money to make it appear a genuine news outlet, just to publish completely fake news stories.

Apparently you missed the David Brock reference.

[rscott]

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

RumbleOfThunder said:

rscott said:

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

Classic example of truly fake news, as opposed to bias/propaganda, was the Baltimore Gazette website. This appeared mid way through the US election campaign using the original paper's letterhead and claiming to be one of the oldest daily papers in the US.
It ran believable local news stories, but kept updating the dates on them so it appeared to be publishing recent news. It would then publish a few extremely anti-Clinton, utterly fake stories ( eg http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-baltimor... ).

Another classic example is buried in the HP article itself. HC did get questions in advance for the debate from CNN/Donna Brasile. Confirmed by Wikileaks.

"Reporting" like this leads me to question whether the BG was a David Brock creation to begin with. Fake news reporting on fake news.

Good job.

To use your favourite term, "triggered" . There are plenty of articles about the BG - didn't you wonder why i quoted the HuffPo..

The BG article was a complete fake with a tale about questions for a debate arriving via courier.

http://lunaticoutpost.com/thread-692501.html

So the method of delivery was the fake bit? I've read worse this year.

It was actually about a completely different debate - Brazile leaked the questions for a town hall debate during the primaries, the BG article claimed that the questions for one of the presidential debates were leaked by courier to HC's team. Web Archive of the post - http://web.archive.org/web/20160929221119/http://b... .

Allow me to spell things out for you. With this statement: "Nevertheless, a story about Clinton getting the debate questions ahead of time? Fake news site or no, you’d have to be a complete idiot to believe..." the HuffPost blogger is attempting to broadly associate the idea that HRC received debate questions in advance with "fake" news.

The average Facetweeting knee-jerk HuffPost reader then assumes that all reporting on HRC receiving debate questions in advance is a lie.

While I appreciate that only Facetweeting millenial types will fall for this, we should still call out this sort of thing, no matter how poor the effort.

It must be strange living in your world where words change their meaning as they pass from the screen, through your eyes and into your brain.

Forget the conclusion of the HuffPo story and consider the basic facts about that site. It contained a completely fake story, with no supporting evidence or references, which claimed Clinton's team received the questions for the Presidential debate ahead of time. Would you agree that the story on the BG has no evidence whatsoever to support it's claims?

My point isn't and wasn't about the BG story itself, but rather how it was used. This is like talking to a wall.

Funny - my point was about the existence (or otherwise) of the BG . Huff Po was simply used because it had a clear summary of the fake story. However you choose to ignore the larger point - that someone is prepared to set up a completely fake website, spending time & money to make it appear a genuine news outlet, just to publish completely fake news stories.

Apparently you missed the David Brock reference.

No - saw it, but assumed it was just another one of your random babblings to try and avoid answering. Appears I was correct.

[scherzkeks]

rscott said:

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

RumbleOfThunder said:

rscott said:

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

Classic example of truly fake news, as opposed to bias/propaganda, was the Baltimore Gazette website. This appeared mid way through the US election campaign using the original paper's letterhead and claiming to be one of the oldest daily papers in the US.
It ran believable local news stories, but kept updating the dates on them so it appeared to be publishing recent news. It would then publish a few extremely anti-Clinton, utterly fake stories ( eg http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-baltimor... ).

Another classic example is buried in the HP article itself. HC did get questions in advance for the debate from CNN/Donna Brasile. Confirmed by Wikileaks.

"Reporting" like this leads me to question whether the BG was a David Brock creation to begin with. Fake news reporting on fake news.

Good job.

To use your favourite term, "triggered" . There are plenty of articles about the BG - didn't you wonder why i quoted the HuffPo..

The BG article was a complete fake with a tale about questions for a debate arriving via courier.

http://lunaticoutpost.com/thread-692501.html

So the method of delivery was the fake bit? I've read worse this year.

It was actually about a completely different debate - Brazile leaked the questions for a town hall debate during the primaries, the BG article claimed that the questions for one of the presidential debates were leaked by courier to HC's team. Web Archive of the post - http://web.archive.org/web/20160929221119/http://b... .

Allow me to spell things out for you. With this statement: "Nevertheless, a story about Clinton getting the debate questions ahead of time? Fake news site or no, you’d have to be a complete idiot to believe..." the HuffPost blogger is attempting to broadly associate the idea that HRC received debate questions in advance with "fake" news.

The average Facetweeting knee-jerk HuffPost reader then assumes that all reporting on HRC receiving debate questions in advance is a lie.

While I appreciate that only Facetweeting millenial types will fall for this, we should still call out this sort of thing, no matter how poor the effort.

It must be strange living in your world where words change their meaning as they pass from the screen, through your eyes and into your brain.

Forget the conclusion of the HuffPo story and consider the basic facts about that site. It contained a completely fake story, with no supporting evidence or references, which claimed Clinton's team received the questions for the Presidential debate ahead of time. Would you agree that the story on the BG has no evidence whatsoever to support it's claims?

My point isn't and wasn't about the BG story itself, but rather how it was used. This is like talking to a wall.

Funny - my point was about the existence (or otherwise) of the BG . Huff Po was simply used because it had a clear summary of the fake story. However you choose to ignore the larger point - that someone is prepared to set up a completely fake website, spending time & money to make it appear a genuine news outlet, just to publish completely fake news stories.

Apparently you missed the David Brock reference.

random babblings

Translation: Things you do not understand

Edited by scherzkeks on Wednesday 22 March 16:23

[BlackLabel]

Facebook has broadened its campaign to raise awareness about fake news, by publishing adverts in the UK press. The ads, in papers including The Times, The Guardian and Daily Telegraph, carry a list of 10 things to look out for when deciding if a story is genuine.

[768]

Some of their advice makes me wince a little, but trying to encourage people to think critically is a much better idea than censorship.

Of course, the next step is to make peace with the idea that if you lose the argument it doesn't follow that it's because only people on the other side succumbed to fake news.

[Shakermaker]

768 said:

Some of their advice makes me wince a little, but trying to encourage people to think critically is a much better idea than censorship.

Of course, the next step is to make peace with the idea that if you lose the argument it doesn't follow that it's because only people on the other side succumbed to fake news.

I think its pretty good advice because it is of course aimed at those who are much more naive on the internet and haven't been on forums/satire sites for 20 years like some of us, who know what to look for.

This same advice could well be given to all those people who "like and share" to win a Range Rover or a £50,000 holiday from a company that doesn't actually exist

Also, people need to understand the difference between "Fake News" and "Mis-Reported News" where the second, will often get a correction later on if the news source is at least reputable, though mis-reporting might well hurt their short term credibility.

[scherzkeks]

Shakermaker said:

768 said:

Some of their advice makes me wince a little, but trying to encourage people to think critically is a much better idea than censorship.

Of course, the next step is to make peace with the idea that if you lose the argument it doesn't follow that it's because only people on the other side succumbed to fake news.

Also, people need to understand the difference between "Fake News" and "Mis-Reported News" where the second, will often get a correction later on if the news source is at least reputable, though mis-reporting might well hurt their short term credibility.

A correction is standard fare when something is misreported. The problem in the current climate is determining whether misreporting = a genuine, unintentional mistake or whether it is a tactic.

When we see multiple corrections issued from the same sites repeatedly and in the context of a broader narrative, misreporting becomes fake news.

[rscott]

scherzkeks said:

Shakermaker said:

768 said:

Some of their advice makes me wince a little, but trying to encourage people to think critically is a much better idea than censorship.

Of course, the next step is to make peace with the idea that if you lose the argument it doesn't follow that it's because only people on the other side succumbed to fake news.

Also, people need to understand the difference between "Fake News" and "Mis-Reported News" where the second, will often get a correction later on if the news source is at least reputable, though mis-reporting might well hurt their short term credibility.

A correction is standard fare when something is misreported. The problem in the current climate is determining whether misreporting = a genuine, unintentional mistake or whether it is a tactic.

When we see multiple corrections issued from the same sites repeatedly and in the context of a broader narrative, misreporting becomes fake news.

When the corrections take months to appear, they're pretty worthless too. Eg, this correction published in May for a story posted in January - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-4478840/Cl...