Fact checking your news sources

[Minerva]

If there is anyone else out there having conversations with your kids (or parents, spouses, neighbors, friends) about figuring out what is fake news, the link provides a very informative and user friendly guide from Indiana State University's Library on checking your news sources. 

 

I  :001_wub: librarians. 

 

Help! My News is Fake!

 

HTH

[flyingaway]

Thank you! Looks like a great resource. Yes, we've been having conversations about fake news. And I've done some passive-aggressive Facebook posting on the subject. Sad and pitiful attempts to influence my mother and sister.

[Minerva]

Thank you! Looks like a great resource. Yes, we've been having conversations about fake news. And I've done some passive-aggressive Facebook posting on the subject. Sad and pitiful attempts to influence my mother and sister.

 

Would it be too obvious if you sent them the link?  :leaving:

[TravelingChris]

I keep getting fake news about health concerns and one particular current event (not the election).  I am just generally skeptical.  I don't know how to teach others to be wary-   it seems to usually be an inborn trait- naturally suspicious or not.  (And I don't mean paranoically suspicious, just a healthy dose of skepticism).  I didn't really know much about that current event but quickly recognized the fact that it was most likely fake news since one of the articles I read complained that no other new site was reporting including both liberal sites- NYT, ABC, etc, and the more conservative sites- Fox News, etc,    AS it is, it isn;t an issue I am directly involved with anyway so it didn't really make any difference to me.  Though one site I see listed as a fake news site at times I have found to have the links and citations I need and having checked those, have found the site to be generally credible.  BUt I have had issues with so- called mainstream sites like Washington Post lately where they called out all sorts of sites as fake news, both very liberal sites and more conservative sites.  Most of the sites I had never heard of.  Anyway, their source was anonymous group that had just formed and that is something I don't trust.  I have read articles both from a liberal viewpoint and from a conservative viewpoint that this group just seemed to target sites that had material that disagreed with the current administration on some issue.  One of the sites was simply a news conglomerator so no independent news on the site at all. At that site, you click on a story and then decide whether you trust the source.  The stories tend to come from all legitimate news sites- NYT, BBC, Agente France, Reuters, Fox news, local newspapers, local tv channels, etc.  On another site I go to, people post links to stories and then have a discussion.  Some of those links I don't trust- Russia Today, for example, but it is interesting to see what viewpoint they are pushing.

[KathyBC]

I have a problem with the article's broad categorization of "fake news". While I detest alarmist headlines, that doesn't make the story fake.

Also, sharing this article on my FB feed will probably not convince those that need to hear it. They love sites like mercola.com. Simply telling people it's "fake" won't convince people who already don't understand basic science.

[Minerva]

I have a problem with the article's broad categorization of "fake news". While I detest alarmist headlines, that doesn't make the story fake.

Also, sharing this article on my FB feed will probably not convince those that need to hear it. They love sites like mercola.com. Simply telling people it's "fake" won't convince people who already don't understand basic science.

 

I am not entirely understanding what you are saying (not being intentionally obtuse, just really not getting it). The site is not about fake headlines. It is about evaluating sources. It gives you step by step instructions about how to know if what you are looking at all is fact-based. It gives an example of how to look at a webpage and see if the "news" it is reporting is invented or real. It gives you links to lists of parody and fake news sites. It reminds us to check our own sources before we embarrass ourselves by spouting nonsense. 

 

I do understand what you are saying about simply telling people it's fake will probably not dissuade some people from believing fake news, but I also think there are people who would like to learn how to evaluate sources, especially in this freakishly fast technological world. 

[KathyBC]

I am not entirely understanding what you are saying (not being intentionally obtuse, just really not getting it). The site is not about fake headlines. It is about evaluating sources. It gives you step by step instructions about how to know if what you are looking at all is fact-based. It gives an example of how to look at a webpage and see if the "news" it is reporting is invented or real. It gives you links to lists of parody and fake news sites. It reminds us to check our own sources before we embarrass ourselves by spouting nonsense. 

 

From the site:

 

There are four broad categories of fake news, according to media professor Melissa Zimdars of Merrimack College.

CATEGORY 1: Fake, false, or regularly misleading websites that are shared on Facebook and social media. Some of these websites may rely on “outrage†by using distorted headlines and decontextualized or dubious information in order to generate likes, shares, and profits.

CATEGORY 2: Websites that may circulate misleading and/or potentially unreliable information

CATEGORY 3: Websites which sometimes use clickbait-y headlines and social media descriptions

CATEGORY 4: Satire/comedy sites, which can offer important critical commentary on politics and society, but have the potential to be shared as actual/literal news

No single topic falls under a single category - for example, false or misleading medical news may be entirely fabricated (Category 1), may intentionally misinterpret facts or misrepresent data (Category 2), may be accurate or partially accurate but use an alarmist title to get your attention (Category 3) or may be a critique on modern medical practice (Category 4.)  Some articles fall under more than one category.  It is up to you to do the legwork to make sure your information is good.

 

I was referring to category three. If the story is accurate, using an alarmist title does not suddenly change it to "fake".

Although, thinking about is some more, if you see an article with a sensational headline, it does seem obvious to do a little research to verify it is valid.

Edited December 3, 2016 by KathyBC

[Minerva]

From the site:

 

I was referring to category three. If the story is accurate, using an alarmist title does not suddenly change it to "fake".

Although, thinking about is some more, if you see an article with a sensational headline, it does seem obvious to do a little research to verify it is valid.

 

Got it! 

 

I hate click bait, not that I am immune. I just check my sources and take a shower. 

[flyingaway]

Would it be too obvious if you sent them the link? :leaving:

Then I would have to listen to them being offended that I would think they needed such a link.

 

I'll just stick with imagining that one day they will actually click and read some link I share about spotting fake news and be instantly transformed. Maybe they'll even thank me for helping them be enlightened. One can dream.

Edited December 3, 2016 by flyingaway

[hornblower]

why would someone downvote this thread?  (I've 5 starred it to bump up but it was at 1 star at one point) 

I suspect there are people here who REALLY do not want to admit fake news exists or that they have been suckered. 

[Minerva]

why would someone downvote this thread?  (I've 5 starred it to bump up but it was at 1 star at one point) 

 

I suspect there are people here who REALLY do not want to admit fake news exists or that they have been suckered. 

 

Wait! What? Thank you. 

[luuknam]

why would someone downvote this thread?  (I've 5 starred it to bump up but it was at 1 star at one point) 

 

I suspect there are people here who REALLY do not want to admit fake news exists or that they have been suckered. 

 

In another thread people have admitted to accidentally downvoting a thread on their phone without even realizing it. Allegedly it's quite easy to do.

[luuknam]

Allegedly...it's funny the way you can predict the threads where such accidents are likely to take place!

 

Well, I didn't verify if those people were reliable sources. ;)

[Lady Florida.]

In another thread people have admitted to accidentally downvoting a thread on their phone without even realizing it. Allegedly it's quite easy to do.

 

 

Allegedly...it's funny the way you can predict the threads where such accidents are likely to take place!

 

I was skeptical until it happened to me - more than once. I don't use tapatalk but the site loads differently on my phone than on my computer. I wonder if using the app vs. reading on the web makes a difference in how easy it is to accidentally do something like downvote.

[TravelingChris]

I know I once saw some regular media outlet report on a story from The Onion.  Another story was reported that came from a comedian's show.  That is why I like artlicles that have sources I can evalutate.  Sen this, Dr, that,  I don't meant that I automically think a senator or doctor has got the right story but at least I can check them.

 

 

I don't really know what they mean by click bait unless they are touting sites that say - Learn the secret behind X.  A number of stories I have read started on facebook and I had to click on them.  I get facebook posts about birds since I am into birding.  I then click and find out new info about a specific bird  and they are from birding or natural resources sites.

[LucyStoner]

The default way the site opens on the iPhone and android phone I have opened it on (without tapatalk) doesn't give me a way to see the thread rating or vote on it. I can switch to the full version where such an accident could happen but it's way easier to read and navigate in the default mobile site.

 

iPad is where I could grasp accidental down-voting/low thread rating occurring the most, that said I don't think it's the whole exlainatikn as it doesn't seem to happen accidentally as much on threads that are in no way controversial.

[Pam in CT]

Got it! 

 

I hate click bait, not that I am immune. I just check my sources and take a shower. 

 

:lol:

[LucyStoner]

I keep getting fake news about health concerns and one particular current event (not the election). I am just generally skeptical. I don't know how to teach others to be wary- it seems to usually be an inborn trait- naturally suspicious or not. (And I don't mean paranoically suspicious, just a healthy dose of skepticism). I didn't really know much about that current event but quickly recognized the fact that it was most likely fake news since one of the articles I read complained that no other new site was reporting including both liberal sites- NYT, ABC, etc, and the more conservative sites- Fox News, etc, AS it is, it isn;t an issue I am directly involved with anyway so it didn't really make any difference to me. Though one site I see listed as a fake news site at times I have found to have the links and citations I need and having checked those, have found the site to be generally credible. BUt I have had issues with so- called mainstream sites like Washington Post lately where they called out all sorts of sites as fake news, both very liberal sites and more conservative sites. Most of the sites I had never heard of. Anyway, their source was anonymous group that had just formed and that is something I don't trust. I have read articles both from a liberal viewpoint and from a conservative viewpoint that this group just seemed to target sites that had material that disagreed with the current administration on some issue. One of the sites was simply a news conglomerator so no independent news on the site at all. At that site, you click on a story and then decide whether you trust the source. The stories tend to come from all legitimate news sites- NYT, BBC, Agente France, Reuters, Fox news, local newspapers, local tv channels, etc. On another site I go to, people post links to stories and then have a discussion. Some of those links I don't trust- Russia Today, for example, but it is interesting to see what viewpoint they are pushing.

Also some of what WaPo called out as fake news is actually clearly satire. The Borowitz Report for example. I've never seen anyone share that thinking it was real.

 

Some of the fake news is poorly done wannabe satire but much of it was incendiary and written for profit. The people who promulgated it have said they did it mostly because it worked as a money maker, not out of any real ideological drive.

[Minerva]

  I get facebook posts about birds since I am into birding.  I then click and find out new info about a specific bird  and they are from birding or natural resources sites.

 

I am LOL about birder click-bait:

 

Bombshell! You wont believe what this robin tweeted!

 

Shocking New Study Reveals The Early Bird Doesn't Get the Worm!

 

13 Secrets Raptors don't want you to know!

[goldberry]

From the site:

 

I was referring to category three. If the story is accurate, using an alarmist title does not suddenly change it to "fake".

Although, thinking about is some more, if you see an article with a sensational headline, it does seem obvious to do a little research to verify it is valid.

 

I agree with you it does not always mean it's fake.  It does change the "tone" of the article though in people's minds. Also, how many people read the headline, a few sentences of the article, and then go off feeling like the headline was "true"?

 

If they read the full article, they might determine that the headline wasn't really supported.  But frankly, we are seeing a shocking lack of reasoning ability lately, and I think that is enough to make alarmist headlines that are not fully supported by facts a problem.  It's a way of editorializing the news.

 

ETA, also, people are overwhelmed by the level of "alarm" created by the media, that when it comes time for something deserving real alarm, people are insensitive to it.  The media can become the kid who cried wolf.  Dangerous when there are things we really need to be informed of and be alarmed about.

Edited December 4, 2016 by goldberry

[KathyBC]

I also have to wonder how many who click on fake news actually believe it. I can scan the cover of National Enquirer while standing in line at the grocery store, but that doesn't mean I believed any of it.

[goldberry]

I also have to wonder how many who click on fake news actually believe it. I can scan the cover of National Enquirer while standing in line at the grocery store, but that doesn't mean I believed any of it.

 

I used to think that until I started hearing people repeating the craziest stuff.  People forwarding emails, or posting on FB.  I keep asking, "who would believe that?"  or "who wouldn't check that?"  But there are a surprising number of people not exercising critical thinking.  

 

This is a good example of how it happens, regarding the report that professional anti-Trump protesters were being bussed in to Austin. It was later proven false.

 

How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/business/media/how-fake-news-spreads.html

[kiana]

I used to think that until I started hearing people repeating the craziest stuff.  People forwarding emails, or posting on FB.  I keep asking, "who would believe that?"  or "who wouldn't check that?"  But there are a surprising number of people not exercising critical thinking.  

 

Yep. I used to be amused by this website that records people who apparently (I say apparently because I could see posting those to be funny, sometimes, but I've argued with some of these people who really weren't just trolling) believe fake news stories, but now I'm just mostly sadden. Still gonna share: 

 

http://literallyunbelievable.org/

[Ausmumof3]

I am LOL about birder click-bait:

 

Bombshell! You wont believe what this robin tweeted!

 

Shocking New Study Reveals The Early Bird Doesn't Get the Worm!

 

13 Secrets Raptors don't want you to know!

😂😂😂

[ktgrok]

From the site:

 

I was referring to category three. If the story is accurate, using an alarmist title does not suddenly change it to "fake".

Although, thinking about is some more, if you see an article with a sensational headline, it does seem obvious to do a little research to verify it is valid.

 

I think the issue is that the headlines are often not just sensational, but outright lies, even if the article itself is fairly accurate. So few people actually READ the article, so the headline is what is shared and believed. 

 

Many times in the past year I've clicked on something and read the article, only to find it says exactly the opposite of what the headline implies or states. 

Edited December 4, 2016 by ktgrok

[ktgrok]

Also some of what WaPo called out as fake news is actually clearly satire. The Borowitz Report for example. I've never seen anyone share that thinking it was real.

 

Some of the fake news is poorly done wannabe satire but much of it was incendiary and written for profit. The people who promulgated it have said they did it mostly because it worked as a money maker, not out of any real ideological drive.

 

Oh, people can and do share satire sites thinking they are real news. I've lost track of how many times I've had to tell some freaking out person that no, such and such did not just happen, it's satire. 

[LucyStoner]

Oh, people can and do share satire sites thinking they are real news. I've lost track of how many times I've had to tell some freaking out person that no, such and such did not just happen, it's satire.

I've seen it too, just not with Borowitz.

[Murphy101]

From the site:

 

I was referring to category three. If the story is accurate, using an alarmist title does not suddenly change it to "fake".

Although, thinking about is some more, if you see an article with a sensational headline, it does seem obvious to do a little research to verify it is valid.

Yes. And no. But when professionals do it all the damn time and so do supposedly legitimate new sources - it makes one wonder if any news isn't fake or at least propaganda.

 

For example doctors often use the scare tactic that a woman could die if she doesn't have a second cesarean after the first one because her risk doubles. Which is true. But even doubled the risk is so low as to be minuscule, so acting as though it's near certain death levels of risk is ridiculously misleading while still technically presenting actual facts.

[TravelingChris]

I called out someone today on a fake news quote.  I looked it up because it seemed unlikely to me.  It was based on an issue I do support and a politician I don't support in part because of this politician's stand on the issue.  But the quote sounded inconsistent with other things I know that politician had said in the past.  So I copied the quote and searched for it.  All I could find were sites where people were questioning the veracity of the quote and other sites spouting the quote. It apparently was from a few years ago too and is now again being spread.  

 

I agree with others that headlines are often misleading.  I too have clicked on a story to find that the story didn't support the headline.

[KathyBC]

I think the issue is that the headlines are often not just sensational, but outright lies, even if the article itself is fairly accurate. So few people actually READ the article, so the headline is what is shared and believed. 

 

Many times in the past year I've clicked on something and read the article, only to find it says exactly the opposite of what the headline implies or states. 

Those sensationalistic headlines have the opposite effect on me: they make me want to believe the story is false even when I know it's true. I usually can't bring myself to click on links with headlines when they are worded that way.  :tongue_smilie:

Edited December 4, 2016 by KathyBC

[KathyBC]

Yes. And no. But when professionals do it all the damn time and so do supposedly legitimate new sources - it makes one wonder if any news isn't fake or at least propaganda.

 

For example doctors often use the scare tactic that a woman could die if she doesn't have a second cesarean after the first one because her risk doubles. Which is true. But even doubled the risk is so low as to be minuscule, so acting as though it's near certain death levels of risk is ridiculously misleading while still technically presenting actual facts.

Wow. Yes, you need to be asking questions and using critical thinking in that instance: double what exactly?

[Farrar]

Today someone actually took an actual assault rifle into Comet Ping Pong because of the fake news thing that it was a front for a child s*x trafficking ring led by Hillary Clinton. Up to this point, everyone I know who knew that fake story thought it was *hilarious* - I mean, this is a pizza place (and, of course, ping pong venue) that lots of people I know hang out in. Today, it's feeling a little less funny... :( And like too many people really think the fake news is for real.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2016/12/04/d-c-police-respond-to-report-of-a-man-with-a-gun-at-comet-ping-pong-restaurant/?utm_term=.385e5e23185f

 

The gunman's motives haven't been verified yet, but the restaurant had been the subject of threats for the last couple of weeks.

[Murphy101]

Wow. Yes, you need to be asking questions and using critical thinking in that instance: double what exactly?

I completely agree.

 

But it's well known that most don't, to the point that policies are made banking they won't.

 

I've reached the point of deciding if I don't have it from a primary source, I give it little attention. Which weeds out most things even from supposed credible news.

[Farrar]

I completely agree.

 

But it's well known that most don't, to the point that policies are made banking they won't.

 

I've reached the point of deciding if I don't have it from a primary source, I give it little attention. Which weeds out most things even from supposed credible news.

 

In looking at the fake news problem though, I've started to believe that the fake news is only part of the problem. None of us can be fully informed about everything from primary sources. No one has time for that. Professional journalists don't have time for that. So then we're left with two basic options: be informed about and understand nothing that we didn't have time to do extensive research about (so, understand just a few small things) OR be willing to accept that journalists occasionally make mistakes and that no source is perfect, but that some sources are "good enough" and then be informed about a variety of things.

 

I'm glad that people are starting to get on the anti-fake news bandwagon. But I'm also alarmed at how many people don't trust the sources that do the fact checking and are basically honest. No source is perfect. Journalists make mistakes. Sources that try to be nonpartisan have bias because everything has bias. Primary sources have bias. "We believe in relying on facts" is a bias (which is presumably why so many people call Snopes and Politifact biased)! However, we need journalism to tell us things. Otherwise we won't ever know much of anything.

[Murphy101]

In looking at the fake news problem though, I've started to believe that the fake news is only part of the problem. None of us can be fully informed about everything from primary sources. No one has time for that. Professional journalists don't have time for that. So then we're left with two basic options: be informed about and understand nothing that we didn't have time to do extensive research about (so, understand just a few small things) OR be willing to accept that journalists occasionally make mistakes and that no source is perfect, but that some sources are "good enough" and then be informed about a variety of things.

 

I'm glad that people are starting to get on the anti-fake news bandwagon. But I'm also alarmed at how many people don't trust the sources that do the fact checking and are basically honest. No source is perfect. Journalists make mistakes. Sources that try to be nonpartisan have bias because everything has bias. Primary sources have bias. "We believe in relying on facts" is a bias (which is presumably why so many people call Snopes and Politifact biased)! However, we need journalism to tell us things. Otherwise we won't ever know much of anything.

If they don't have time to do their JOB with integrity, then they should be informed they need a new job.

 

The only reason they don't have time, especially in this digital age when it is so much easier and faster to access, is because those journalists are more concerned about sensationalism sound bites than informing the public of genuine news.

 

And to add to that... Genuine news would be news, not gossip. The 10 o'clock news should not include that some celebrity is getting divorced for example.

 

As for insisting on primary sources...

You are right, I don't worry about it for everything. But if it's news I think is important, or at least important to me, I try to dig up original sources and follow the information trail from there.

 

If it isn't important to me, I tend to not bother either way. IOW, I won't search for a credible sources bc I'm likely not interested in it at all.

 

This is not about journalists making mistakes. Of course humans do that. It's about not doing their job to begin with. And when called on it, their best defense seems to be, well no one else does either.

 

They lose credibility when by their own design, they make their "news" such a mess.

Much like Drs who use scare tactics unnecessarily.

 

It does not mean I think all medicine/Drs or journalism sources are bunk. Not at all.

[hornblower]

I'm beginning to think that the old statement that 'we have the governments we deserve' 

 

also applies to journalists "We have the journalists we deserve." 

Journalism costs money. If you are not willing to pay for it, you get junk that is sensational and click baity. 

[TravelingChris]

I am skeptical about Snopes though I do use it at times.  But I do believe it is biased against conservatives.  I don't remember what I had a problem with but do know that I had a problem with the site a few years ago.  

 

But I want to reiterate that looking at a phony story or an unsubstantied story doesn't necessarily mean you believe it.  I have occasionally looked at various stories because of curiosity about what garbage is being peddled. 

 

As to the pizzagate story, I don't know who came up with that.  It seems to take various emails and texts of different people, along with interviews, fundraising links, real FBI reports on pedophilia symbols, bad photos  (unclear), Bill Clinton's history, etc, etc, and make it into one giant conspiracy.  I didn't see it as holding together well at all and I am generally suspicious of grand conspiracies.  But others who have a more paranoid nature gravitate towards conspiracy and the one guy acted upon it.  I don't know what anyone of us can do about such stories except check sources and not forward or share dubious stories.   

[hornblower]

I don't know if we can really  talk about pizzagate here as there's no way it can be discussed without being political. I think perhaps I can squeak in with saying the conspiracy is still being peddled, including by people close to your peotus.

On twitter, within the last hour. 

[Vida Winter]

A few thoughts:

 

Blacklisted site strikes back at Washington Post

 

Mainstream media is projecting. They were the ones faking the news, and the "fake news" meme was created to deflect and blame others.

 

Another big problem is native advertising. Ex: Upbeat story about how coffee prolongs lifespan....sponsored by <coffee manufacturer>. If truthful, the sponsorship is noted. Often it is not.

 

[Farrar]

If they don't have time to do their JOB with integrity, then they should be informed they need a new job.

 

I think you misunderstood what I meant. What I meant is that even professional journalists can't be informed about and fact check EVERYTHING. They can absolutely (and most at reputable outlets do) fact check their own work. But no journalist is reporting on everything. Most have a specific beat. In the case of investigative journalism, reporters often spend months on a single story. No one has time to do that for every story - or even enough stories to be reasonably well informed about the world.

 

We need sources we trust to do that. I think that - while there are more fake sources now, there's more opinion writing floating around now being shared (and there's nothing wrong with that - but it's different from reporting), there's more lazy journalism... there are still outlets that can be trusted. And everyone needs to find those reputable sources and use them.

 

I really think knowing how to spot fake news is just step one.

[Bluegoat]

I find myself in the last few years frustrated with the way a lot of sources just don't ask questions about what they get from organizations as far as press releases and such.

 

About two years ago a friend f mine posted a item like that on FB - it was from Mother Earth News or maybe Mothering, and it was just a press release about a bit of research conducted at MIT, about diet.  It seemed like something people interested in alternative ealth and diet stuff would be interested in, the kind of people that would read those publications.

 

There was something about it that seemed odd to me though, that I couldn't put my finger on, and I really wished they had asked a few questions.  And given that they bill themselves to be critical of mainstream claims, it seems to me like they should also be critical of non-mainstream claims. (Wishful thinking, I know.)  But they had just printed this really I thing just as they received it.

 

Two things happened with this - I mentioned to my friend I had questions, and she felt that it was trustworthy research since it came out of MIT.  So I did some research, and IMO it really was dodgy.  It was out of MIT, but the people involved didn't seem to have the right background for the field of study, and there were some other things too.  I found some papers suggesting theirs was junk science, too.  My impression was it was a couple of people setting themselves up to write a diet book and make a bundle.

 

However - these things aren't all that easy for people to figure out - if I had just been looking to see a real published paper out of a real lab, it was there.  And in the end, those magazines have no budget anymore, people want fast online content, so they don't have the cash to pay people with knowledge of the topic to suss things out. 

[Farrar]

I don't know if we can really  talk about pizzagate here as there's no way it can be discussed without being political. I think perhaps I can squeak in with saying the conspiracy is still being peddled, including by people close to your peotus.

On twitter, within the last hour. 

 

It's sad to me that we can't call this out on this forum. It should be beyond politics. I mean, I know this restaurant. I've eaten there and played ping pong. I know someone whose kid plays in a band that plays there sometimes. I have friends who work on that block who know the owners. To all of us who live here, it's a preposterous story. If a partisan person were tweeting that aliens were abducting his garden gnomes would we also not be allowed to talk about that? Because this story is that level of absurd. It has been repeatedly verified that it's untrue. I know this forum is host to people of all political stripes, but I would really hope we could agree not to believe imaginary tunnels under Connecticut Avenue.

 

And, to be clear, the police have now verified that the shooter said he was, indeed motivated by the fake news story.

 

At what point are the fake news producers, who are motivated by money primarily, liable for this stuff. If the shooter had managed to kill people at Comet, would the person who convinced him - for fun and profit and nothing else - that there was a human trafficking ring there bear any legal responsibility? I certainly think they bear a moral responsibility.

[hornblower]

 

 

Mainstream media is projecting. They were the ones faking the news, and the "fake news" meme was created to deflect and blame others.

Who are you calling "mainstream media"?

 

 

Several groups abroad & in the US have come forward & admitted running fake news.  Are you suggesting NPR & WaPo are making up these stories? 

 

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/17/facebook-fake-news-writer-i-think-donald-trump-is-in-the-white-house-because-of-me/?utm_term=.a98f2e00b9ba

[TravelingChris]

Both of those articles mention fake news posters were either registered Democrat (NPR) or anti conservative people. THey were both in it for the money as are the fake medical news too.  I saw that fake Amish voting story and didn't click on it. 

[Farrar]

Is this not a hot topic because everyone here agrees more or less that fake news is dumb and bad?

 

I wonder if people are more sure of their ability to recognize it than is true. Or if maybe the WTM hive is pretty good at knowing the difference. Thanks, logic.

[Pam in CT]

One issue that the fake news proliferation has really driven home for me, is how changing business models within the media, combined with technology platforms, have created the circumstances for fake news to flourish... and how I have myself inadvertently fed those dynamics with my own behavior.

 

When I was just out of college and had a whole lot less disposable income than I do today, I bought a morning paper on my way to work and an evening paper on the way home; and subscribed to a handful of print magazines.  I spent more in absolute terms (let alone as a % of income) on news than I do today.

 

When news is obtainable online for free, it seems quite natural to expect it for free, and to balk at paywalls etc on the part of longstanding Pulitzer-winning news providers.  

 

Yet over the long haul we get what we pay for, with news just like anything else.  Investigative journalism costs; FOIA requests cost, reporters in the field cost.  The increasingly wide expectation that news should be free drives the whole sector toward call-in talking-head punditry over actual investigative work (on the cable side) and over to outright fabrication for clicks-for-pay (on the social media side, as per the linked articles above).

 

Which is why I'm asking for, and giving, paid subscriptions to a variety of quality sources, all points on the political spectrum, as gifts throughout the year ahead.

[Murphy101]

I think you misunderstood what I meant. What I meant is that even professional journalists can't be informed about and fact check EVERYTHING. They can absolutely (and most at reputable outlets do) fact check their own work. But no journalist is reporting on everything. Most have a specific beat. In the case of investigative journalism, reporters often spend months on a single story. No one has time to do that for every story - or even enough stories to be reasonably well informed about the world.

 

We need sources we trust to do that. I think that - while there are more fake sources now, there's more opinion writing floating around now being shared (and there's nothing wrong with that - but it's different from reporting), there's more lazy journalism... there are still outlets that can be trusted. And everyone needs to find those reputable sources and use them.

 

I really think knowing how to spot fake news is just step one.

No. I understood you. If journalists are not making sure their information is coming from credible sources, then who are they to whine about the general populace being taken by fake news?

 

Journalists make errors. Sure.

 

It is not just some error to not validate that their facts are indeed facts.

 

If they want to blame how fast they have to get the story out, even if it isn't actually a story, or blame that they just don't have the budget to validate their sources - then basicly they are useless and not much better than any other pseudo news source.

 

And that's what I'm referring to right there.

 

That can quickly turn into a reality where all news is faux news. Or at best, it certainly creates so much question about the reliability of it that it's hard to convince people to respect it.

[goldberry]

Both of those articles mention fake news posters were either registered Democrat (NPR) or anti conservative people. THey were both in it for the money as are the fake medical news too.  I saw that fake Amish voting story and didn't click on it. 

 

I don't understand your comment here.  You said the MSM was faking news.  The news sites that have been investigated were not mainstream media.   I don't understand your first sentence either.  Clarify?

[Murphy101]

I don't know if I agree about getting what we pay for.

 

People have never had to pay for prime channel news on their tv. Such as the ABC, PBS, CBS, Fox, NBC channel on rabbit ears. Are you (General you) saying that people who watch the 10 o'clock news deserve faux news or pseudo news? Though people aren't usually paying for those channels, those channels/websites get lots of funding via other means.

 

They didn't have to pay for them before the Internet either.

[Farrar]

No. I understood you. If journalists are not making sure their information is coming from credible sources, then who are they to whine about the general populace being taken by fake news?

 

Journalists make errors. Sure.

 

It is not just some error to not validate that their facts are indeed facts.

 

If they want to blame how fast they have to get the story out, even if it isn't actually a story, or blame that they just don't have the budget to validate their sources - then basicly they are useless and not much better than any other pseudo news source.

 

And that's what I'm referring to right there.

 

That can quickly turn into a reality where all news is faux news. Or at best, it certainly creates so much question about the reliability of it that it's hard to convince people to respect it.

 

That's simply not what I meant. I meant that even journalists don't have time to keep up with EVERYTHING without relying on other journalists. If you want to believe that all journalists, even at reputable media outlets are not bothering or purposefully refusing to fact check stories, then put that out as your opinion. Don't say that's what I meant and that you understood me. It's not what I meant or said.

 

ETA: My point was really the opposite. That many journalists do a good job. That we need them to do so. And that impugning the entire profession of journalism isn't useful. There is a problem with fake news. There is a problem with lazy journalism - and sometimes with underfunded journalism that is simply reporting what someone else said (relying on news releases, as someone said above - just saying, this company or government agency said they did this - without following up because they don't have the time or inclination). But I believe there are many sources that do fact check and do a good job. And that's the other end of the equation - don't read fake news, know how to evaluate bias... AND have sources you generally trust.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Farrar