|
cams posted:complaining about bad journalism obfuscates the fact that in the 2016 election, tons of literally false stories from completely garbage sources were spread by primarily trump voters and they believed them to be facts. This is the core of why there is fake news hype right now. I have conservative ex-friends who want the fake news discussion to orbit a "mainstream media is all lies" focus. Sorry, no, this is about literally fake news, your desire to hack and slash at traditional outlets when you've been stumbling across and believing whole-cloth fabrications off Facebook and Reddit for the last six months would be hilarious if it was not also what half of America is doing right now to defend their purchase.
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
new phone who dis posted:The mainstream media and Clinton surrogates were passing off lie after lie this election. Sorry dude, mainstream is fake, too. Taking a step back here, the first step in a discussion on fake news is probably to establish where it's coming from, who is producing it and in what formats, and why. Scrolling back through the last three pages of this thread, it doesn't actually look like any of that has been established. Do I need to go grab a primer literally fake news, not spin or editorialized stuff, but actually fully completely nonexistent stuff? With some exceptions, even the likes of Fox and Breitbart would massively skew and selectively report on events and items that existed. That's not fake news, that's sensationalist / editorial / slanted news that you can find heated debate on in the primary sources amalgamated in scholarly works on journalism in the 1800s (part 4 in a series on journalism up to, through, and after the American Civil War). Fake news is fake news made by amateurs on Facebook or Twitter whose misinterpretation of a live event they document goes viral in a deadly game of telephone. The protest bussing story is actual fake news that exploded through conservative Facebook like gasoline vapor. Fake news is fake news created by once-activist writers who started out seeking to catch conservative and liberal echo chambers in the act of spreading their falsehoods masquerading as legitimate articles by legitimate news sites and found they could make six-figure income by specializing in fake news for the right: http://wcqs.org/post/npr-finds-head-covert-fake-news-operation-suburbs But no, to the half of the country that has spent up to a year conditioning their minds to the point where they can straight-up tell you in the face that a bunch of Goldman Sachs and oil executives in the richest cabinet ever assembled led by a yellow journalism genius and someone who mere months ago was an irredeemable cuck is actually good for the little guy wants the current fake news hype to really be about how it's traditional outlets, not them, who peddle in fake news.  Yeah, that's a big "FAKE NEWS!" label on a TV tuned to CNN right next to a sincere reference to pizzagate pedophilia. Ben Garrison actually drew those next to each other, and Trump supporters are eating it up on Facebook, /pol/ and the_Donald. Verify this for yourself. That is "Thank you for my higher chocolate ration" levels of cognitive dissonance.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
You referring to The Coddling of the American Mind, a thinkpiece that coddles the conservative mind?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
1) Is this about lies in news or fake news? 2) Is there a meaningful difference? I have some thoughts on that but want to field the question first: talking heads with their names and affiliations clearly labeled lying out their rear end VS news articles online masquerading as local press outlet that actually doesn't exist, like the Denver Guardian that was used to make up the story about an FBI killed by the Clintons for leaking email? Or the article pretending it was from MSNBC that for 48 hours after the election had conservatives thinking they won the popular vote yuuge as well? Potato Salad has issued a correction as of 04:59 on Dec 16, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
One of these things has auditable sources and can be picked apart by following those sources like Glenn Greenwald did in the example of Podesta email denying linked above, the other deliberately obfuscates its true origin while leading to a source dead-end that can't be dug any deeper.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
Prav posted:all news outlets have an editor, a gatekeeper Then re-hire the human team  Or have FB buy / contract Snopes.(I'm aware that's probably not going to happen)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Biggest reason right there. All concern Zuckerberg suddenly had one week after the election flies 180 degrees in the face of repeated statements he's made beforehand and even in the few days after. There's no ideological drive behind that pivot. Any actual interest in integrity would be met with a first step of reinstating the good thing FB had going. From there, fix its leftist slant. Potato Salad has issued a correction as of 22:29 on Dec 16, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
I've been trying to think of a good way to describe to new phone the difference between lies and fake news. Posting like that he has above makes me glad I scrapped a draft earlier yesterday in favor of just hanging bait in the form of a question. Laughable, dude.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
Fox News anchor Shepard Smith (one of their best, imo) on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert. Two questions over the course of just a minute of your time on delegitimizing fact dissemination sources and whether fact checking matters anymore. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7GwefWjXeQ&feature=youtu.be&t=5m11s Stephen Colbert interviewed on Christmas on Face the Nation: Truthiness vs Post-Truth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7GwefWjXeQ&feature=youtu.be&t=5m11s Hail chaos.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 06:17
|
|