Fake News

[zoogs]

An interview with the founder of Snopes on the grim fake news outlook:

 

To me, the wave of blame falling upon Facebook and social media in general is just 2016's version of “blame the media.” While I do agree that there's an issue of fake news, I don't agree that that's the fault of Facebook or Google or anyone else.

 

I really think that what we're seeing now with this influx of fake news is the end result of the systemic defunding of media entities for the past 10 years, if not more. We could see this happening in slow motion. We all knew that as trusted media entities began producing less investigative stories, less hard news stories, an information vacuum would emerge into which bullsh#t and propaganda would drop. This was inevitable.

[BigRedBuster]

[Enhance]

As a former member of "the media," I can offer my perspective, for what it's worth.

 

I, perhaps more so than others, get incredibly agitated by fake news sites (shocker). But, people who get sucked into that garbage are about the same to me as those who only get their news from one media outlet. I implore everyone to always seek out information from more than one entity, even if you don't typically agree with the way they tend to cover news. For example, if you're an avid Fox News viewers, consider popping over to CBS or CNN occasionally. Vice versa if you never watch Fox News. Or, if you read a story on one website, see how it's covered on another.

 

The national papers and stations are still the best way to stay informed, but you as a citizen are the one who has to be vigilant about where you get your information and how you process it. The national outlets are going to make mistakes and sometimes may intentionally (or unintentionally) let their subjectivity slip through.

[Enhance]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the dynamic is totally different in a local news station than at a place like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC....etc. Those national news outlets thrive on sensationalism and being first to report a major story.

That pressure isn't there at the local level.

I worked in local TV for three and a half years, so I'll give a couple of thoughts .

 

First, I wouldn't say the dynamic is "totally" different, but it is in some ways. For starters, national outlets are picking and choosing content from a huge pool of information. Local stations don't get that luxury. But, when there's a big local story or a local story that gains national attention, there are more similarities than differences.

 

Second, I disagree with the notion that national news outlets "thrive on sensationalism" (shocker, I know). The vast majority of journalists and producers, even at the national level, are hard-working people just trying to do their job and do it well. That said, I think they do sensationalize more often than they should, or they try to make things a bigger deal than they need to be. But, part of that falls on the consumer. There's a popular news saying "if it bleeds, it leads." That's because people would rather read horrible, thrilling stories than they would nice feature pieces.

 

Third, there isn't as much pressure at the local level if you're in a smaller market, but when you start getting into the Omaha, Cleveland, Orlando, Chicago, etc., markets, there's a ton of pressure.

 

However, I've also noticed that more viewers/readers nowadays don't seem to really care who was first or if the information was wholly accurate right away. A lot of people will read whatever pops into their timeline first and then they figure they'll get the accurate information as the story develops.

[Enhance]

And most local levels' get their feeds from nationals on the big stories right? Until a few years ago at least you could count on them to correct their errors quickly, on air. Now Fox just airs a running list of facts that they misquoted or in some sub plot says,'ooops'.

 

I think there should be fines for the national level outlets (thinking while I type here) - they can decide to gamble and run a story early but if its' untrue the station pays.

At my old station, we pulled national news from The Associated Press wires, CBS News and CNN. We usually relied on the AP's information if there were discrepancies between outlets, however. Or, to avoid overselling or overstating something, we'd usually go with the safest information.

 

As far as the fines go, they sound good in theory but could be interpreted in numerous ways and have some pretty negative implications. I'm also no legal expert, but I don't know how you could legally target the national news agencies and ignore the local ones.

[zoogs]

The national outlets are going to make mistakes and sometimes may intentionally (or unintentionally) let their subjectivity slip through.

Yes. No outlet is above this. I remember when the NYT got criticized heavily for its coverage of a "Harvard study" that wasn't exactly that, and WaPo is currently being pilloried by its fellows in the "liberal media" for what was apparently shoddy reporting in its media blacklist story. The Intercept in particular has been heavy in its criticism lately.

 

ThinkProgress made a big deal of why we should avoid the term "alt-right", and WaPo (I think) responded with a compelling shootdown of the idea. I wonder if TP will dig its heels in and continue with their avoidance of the term.

 

Some of this is just hashing out what was the right thing to do and what wasn't. It's good to see a media that is trying to get at that, and criticizing themselves - and each other - when they don't meet the standard.

[NM11046]

Wow. Just wow. This is where we are at.

 

“One thing that’s been interesting this entire campaign season to watch is that people that say facts are facts. They’re not really facts,” Trump surrogate Scottie Nell Hughes said on “The Diane Rehm Show” on NPR. “It’s kind of like looking at ratings or looking at a glass of half-full water. Everybody has a way of interpreting them to be the truth or not true. There’s no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts.”

[Moiraine]

Anyone have a guess on what happened?


Like... how did we go from trying to move society forward by being learned to suddenly fighting back against it like knowledge is the boogie man?

[BigRedBuster]

Absolute total guess on my part from my observations.

 

There is a very large number of people in this country who do have a high school level of education or below.

 

Now...don't take this by meaning these people are dumb because they aren't.

 

But...there is a built up resentment I think between college educated and everyone else.

 

College educated people many times come off as talking down to other people. They know better because they are educated.

 

This is compounded when you have one side that thinks they are so smart that they should put more and more regulations on everyone and tell them how to live and treat other people.

 

Now....take that into the political arena and it's easy to see how different political powers use those resentments to gain more power.

[zoogs]

I certainly agree about the resentment. I think pushing for higher rates of postsecondary education is an important goal. People like to say a college education is useless, but I mean, there are straightforward costs we pay as a society for not having enough of it. We pay them through our elections.

 

Wow. Just wow. This is where we are at.

 

“One thing that’s been interesting this entire campaign season to watch is that people that say facts are facts. They’re not really facts,” Trump surrogate Scottie Nell Hughes said on “The Diane Rehm Show” on NPR. “It’s kind of like looking at ratings or looking at a glass of half-full water. Everybody has a way of interpreting them to be the truth or not true. There’s no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts.”

 

"Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing."

 

"Being in a minority, even in a minority of one, did not make you mad. There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad."

 

Two quotes from 1984.

 

 

[Moiraine]

Absolute total guess on my part from my observations.

 

There is a very large number of people in this country who do have a high school level of education or below.

 

Now...don't take this by meaning these people are dumb because they aren't.

 

But...there is a built up resentment I think between college educated and everyone else.

 

College educated people many times come off as talking down to other people. They know better because they are educated.

 

This is compounded when you have one side that thinks they are so smart that they should put more and more regulations on everyone and tell them how to live and treat other people.

 

Now....take that into the political arena and it's easy to see how different political powers use those resentments to gain more power.

 

Ya I can see that. Everyone should try to get as much knowledge as they possibly can but college doesn't make you smarter. If you try, it helps you know more about a narrow field.

 

My mom owns a business and she recently had an employee (who no longer works there) who lorded over everyone because she was "college educated" and the rest of the employees weren't (including my mom). Her degree was in art. Not dissing people with art degrees, but having an art degree doesn't make you smarter than anyone. It means you're more knowledgeable... at art and have potentially honed your skills... in art.

 

So there are people all over like that who think having a degree makes them better than people who don't have one.

 

Conversely, there are those without degrees who think ALL people with college degrees are haughty know-it-alls and that having a degree can't possibly mean they know more about anything than someone without a degree.

 

 

What bothers me the most is non-scientists having opinions on things like climate change. I personally know nothing about climate change. But when 95% of climate change scientists who have been studying it for years and years say something, their words hold meaning. We have so many politicians who think their gut is all that matters. It's so unbelievably stupid and dangerous. I know it's possible for scientists to have ulterior motives but what are the chances that more than a handful of those 95% have something to gain by lying about this? Pretty slim.

[NM11046]

The quotes from 1984 are terrifying.

 

So now we have Newt Gingrich and this gal saying this sort of comment on national public television in defense of the president of the United States.

 

Stay with me here, this is a leap, but not one that's too far I don't think. Do you think any of it is tied to our very well educated, black president from the last 8 years? I wonder if we were in a situation where a GW Bush was running if facts/education would be at the forefront of any discussion about president during the campaign. I think, sadly that this is one more example of people who are not aligned to our current president, and because of their hatred of him (much of which I'd argue is really innate prejudice against him as a black man) they go the opposite.

 

Also, it used to be that someone would admit to not being well read on an issue. I think with internet in every room of the home, and on your phone if you're out and about gives folks the idea that if they google something they can then form an opinion and spout it without having the training, or the desire to be able to look at an issue from all sides. How many here have regurgitated talking points during a conversation instead of their opinion, or taking the chance to educate others why they think the way they do?

[NM11046]

Wow. Just wow. This is where we are at.

 

“One thing that’s been interesting this entire campaign season to watch is that people that say facts are facts. They’re not really facts,” Trump surrogate Scottie Nell Hughes said on “The Diane Rehm Show” on NPR. “It’s kind of like looking at ratings or looking at a glass of half-full water. Everybody has a way of interpreting them to be the truth or not true. There’s no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts.”

And then today:

 

"It's his right to express his opinion as president-elect of the United States," Pence said. "I think one of the things that's refreshing about our president-elect and one of the reasons why I think he made such an incredible connection with people all across this country is because he tells you what's on his mind."

"But why is it refreshing to make false statements?" Stephanopoulos asked.

"I don't know that that is a false statement, George, and neither do you," Pence said.

" I know there's no evidence for it," Stephanopoulos replied.

[Enhance]

Like... how did we go from trying to move society forward by being learned to suddenly fighting back against it like knowledge is the boogie man?

Because there are no substantive repercussions for this behavior, but I don't think it's anything necessarily new. I think it's only become more of a problem because of social media and the 24 hour news cycle. You can now find more and more ways than ever to reinforce your own opinions and choose to ignore the ones that don't fit with your views.

 

The fact that Trump and Clinton became the two leading candidates for the presidency is evidence of this, in my opinion. I'm only 27, but I don't ever remember hearing so many people complain about the two leading candidates like this before.

[Fru]

"President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob. There are good, decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to test that aren't taught by some liberal college professor that tries to indoctrinate them."

- Rick Santorum

 

"As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing."

- Karl Rove

 

“We have a president, who I think is a nice guy, but he spent too much time at Harvard, perhaps.”

- Mitt Romney

 

Yes. Education is the true enemy.