BigRedBuster Posted November 17, 2016 Author Share Posted November 17, 2016 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. Link to comment
NM11046 Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 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. Link to comment
Bigred_inSD Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Absolutely, its very calm and relaxed here, if we are at events and someone's pen dies we give them an extra one, if someone is confused we explain it to the other. With that said, the local NBC affiliate here has a main anchor who loves Trump and is known to sensastionalize and not cover certain things. Things have got better since they have a real news director, but when ratings come out its amazing to see how low they are, and how much people fall for sensationalism on Facebook. Also, there are situations on the Pine Ridge Indian reservation which we could sensationalize, and the others as well if they've heard the same information but since we have nothing official from official sources it hasn't been reported. Link to comment
Bigred_inSD Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 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. I agree with the fines, and yes all national stories we get from national, we are affiliated with both CNN and fox. We did send a reporter up to Cannonball, ND for pipeline coverage though. One day we needed a story due to a slow news day, our news director pulled up a national story watched it and said "no that's too sensationalized" and found a different piece. Link to comment
NM11046 Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Props to your station manager! Good work you do - that was my major, and I thought was to be my career, but I couldn't gut it out in the trenches in the beginning. Tough job for sure. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 So the question is: Who defines who is a legit news source that provides real news and not fake news? Many of the major news organizations and newspapers blur the line in articles with opinionated messages within the 'news' article. Even the title of a news article can present a false idea and the real facts are buried in the article. We've debated in these forums which sources are 'acceptable'. Fox News once was a startup and is now a part of the accepted news sources. The same is true of CNN - which was a wild concept that soon upset the cartel of NBC, ABC, CBS back in the 1980s. Of course now it is one of the accepted news sources. Those on the left, demonize Fox, those on the right demonize CNN. For both Fox, MSNBC, CNN one has to differentiate between their 'news' shows and their opinion shows. But even wt the news shows, opinion is presented by what is left on 'the cutting room floor' and where the emphasis is placed within the story. So what is today's startup may be the mainstream news source in the future. Newspapers are a dinosaur, the traditional NBC, ABC, CBS evening news is a dinosaur. Link to comment
zoogs Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 There's a big difference between media tending to sensationalism (also a problem; media criticism and self-criticism was nonstop this campaign), or having bias, or getting stuff wrong, and flat out fake news. The latter is what we're talking about here. The "Denver Guardian" (as in, there is no Denver Guardian). Sites that aren't merely slanted, they push out garbage with the intention of misleading and disrupting. Or sites created by teens in Macedonia figuring out the best way to get Adsense money. Those are the sites that win the battle for eyeballs. And while it's early, I think it's fair to question what effect that is having. 2 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted November 17, 2016 Author Share Posted November 17, 2016 I would think Libel laws would apply here. These sites are putting out false information intentionally. The problem is, you have to have someone take them to task on it. So....in the paid protesters situation, you would need to have protesters actually sue the sites. Well, that's not going to happen because they don't actually name anyone in the articles. Link to comment
zoogs Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Hm, I'm not sure. Libel is a high bar to prove in the U.S (generally a good thing), and also I don't think that could be applied to sites that are run out of the Balkans. IANAL, so, I'll leave this one for the lawyers. As detestable as all this is, laws won't protect us from it. We have to be able to tell the difference. Link to comment
Moiraine Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 There were multiple times during this election process that I seriously considered trying to come up with fake news or fake memes to see if they took off. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted November 17, 2016 Author Share Posted November 17, 2016 Hm, I'm not sure. Libel is a high bar to prove in the U.S (generally a good thing), and also I don't think that could be applied to sites that are run out of the Balkans. IANAL, so, I'll leave this one for the lawyers. As detestable as all this is, laws won't protect us from it. We have to be able to tell the difference. Oh...I completely agree with the bolded. The problem is, people don't WANT to figure that out. If someone hates Hillary, they WANT to go find the most ridiculous bad story about her and believe it. The American people need a "come to Jesus" moment on this issue. I hope the Facebook issues become a huge major story so that at least some people will learn about it. 1 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Hm, I'm not sure. Libel is a high bar to prove in the U.S (generally a good thing), and also I don't think that could be applied to sites that are run out of the Balkans. IANAL, so, I'll leave this one for the lawyers. As detestable as all this is, laws won't protect us from it. We have to be able to tell the difference. Oh...I completely agree with the bolded. The problem is, people don't WANT to figure that out. If someone hates Hillary, they WANT to go find the most ridiculous bad story about her and believe it. The American people need a "come to Jesus" moment on this issue. I hope the Facebook issues become a huge major story so that at least some people will learn about it. Yes. Confirmation bias has always existed. It's just easier now to get your biases confirmed than it ever has been. 2 Link to comment
knapplc Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Hm, I'm not sure. Libel is a high bar to prove in the U.S (generally a good thing), and also I don't think that could be applied to sites that are run out of the Balkans. IANAL, so, I'll leave this one for the lawyers. As detestable as all this is, laws won't protect us from it. We have to be able to tell the difference. Oh...I completely agree with the bolded. The problem is, people don't WANT to figure that out. If someone hates Hillary, they WANT to go find the most ridiculous bad story about her and believe it. The American people need a "come to Jesus" moment on this issue. I hope the Facebook issues become a huge major story so that at least some people will learn about it. Yes. Confirmation bias has always existed. It's just easier now to get your biases confirmed than it ever has been. Can confirm. 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted November 17, 2016 Author Share Posted November 17, 2016 Hm, I'm not sure. Libel is a high bar to prove in the U.S (generally a good thing), and also I don't think that could be applied to sites that are run out of the Balkans. IANAL, so, I'll leave this one for the lawyers. As detestable as all this is, laws won't protect us from it. We have to be able to tell the difference. Oh...I completely agree with the bolded. The problem is, people don't WANT to figure that out. If someone hates Hillary, they WANT to go find the most ridiculous bad story about her and believe it. The American people need a "come to Jesus" moment on this issue. I hope the Facebook issues become a huge major story so that at least some people will learn about it. Yes. Confirmation bias has always existed. It's just easier now to get your biases confirmed than it ever has been. I'm sure it has always existed some. But, it was pretty dang difficult to shield yourself away from real/well researched reporting and focus on crap to confirm your beliefs when you had three networks on TV, the radio and a newspaper. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted November 17, 2016 Author Share Posted November 17, 2016 I laugh and am frustrated by this article at the same time. UH OH: Look which sites are being labeled “Fake News” sites… Hey Allen.... Instead of instantly denigrating the list, why don't you stop and ask yourself why those sites are on the list? In short, Allen West is now claiming the only reason the "Fake News" issue is being discussed is because the liberals are mad that Trump won. What a load of horse hooey. Link to comment
Recommended Posts