Combating Fake News

[audreyh1]

Some of the fake news is coming from well orchestrated sources with plants in various locations. It's not just individuals acting alone.

[easysurfer]

I look at a site like this future wiki site as a circuit breaker.

Instead of person or organization making a post and that's called news (like that Stat Farm commercial, if seen on the internet, has to be real), take a breath and do some cross checking before spreading the news.

[Which Roger]

I'm doing my little part to combat fake news on facebook by gently calling it out. When somebody posts news that looks suspicious, I Snope it and if it turns out to be fake, I reply with the snopes link. A recent example was Mexico's supposed border wall with Guatemala. The picture showed a fence running through a desert, and I didn't think Guatemala had much desert. Turns out the picture was from somewhere in the Middle East.

To distance myself from groupthink, I turn off everything in the right panel, particularly facebook's recommended news stories.

[Exrook]

Fake news has been around for a long time:

Did Disney Fake Lemming Deaths for the Nature Documentary 'White Wilderness'?

[DrBrisket]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zinger1457 Read an interesting interview a reporter had with a writer who had started his own fake news web site. At least in this case he wasn't doing it for political reasons, it was solely for the money. The income generated from the web site was based on the number of hits the web site received. He soon found out the crazier the story the more hits the web site got, the more money he made. Pretty simple formula.

The amount of money that can be made is astounding with a fake news website. Here's a blog posting that purports to "look inside" the business of fake news: "Why Does Fake News Exist?".

What I find particularly disturbing is that the author of this article is propagating fake news with one of his examples. The "two different front pages on the same day of a newspaper" claim is false (if we can trust snopes): snopes two headlines debunking.

[imoldernu]

In my lifetime, can recall no time when the country was so fractious. Even in polite society, subjects that were once open for discussion, are now taboo. Not just politics, but everything from education, to health, to diet and even the interpretation of the constitution has put gentility into the background.

It used to be just politics and religion that fanned the fires, but media overkill has forced many to adopt a gold standard of factual philosophy... something to hold on to... when it seems that the norms we learned and believed in have been turned upside down.

I have lived in over-55 and senior communities since 1990, and, until the past several years, have truly enjoyed thoughtful discussions about a myriad of subjects. Discussions and interaction over everything from politics, to morals, and, yes, religion. Whether it's because the current community is much older, or more likely the people no longer feel obliged to have strong opinions, we no longer talk about the here and now, but more of the past... things we have done and places we've been.

That said, I am an intinerant reader and viewer of news. Initially lured by the spectacular and off-base, but now, spreading my time across the spectrum of TV and on-line "news" sources. It has become an "equal time" project. The spread from far left, to far right and beyond, is now quantified by sources in Google. After spending a few weeks sorting out the nonsense, the choices have been whittled down to about 15 or 20 sites that deal more with facts, and thoughtful analysis.

The next problem is to find someone with whom to have a meaningful discussion. The websites have become so polarized that few are to be found that don't attract fools and trolls.

And so it goes... I rationalize the situation by reminding myself that 50% of the population have/has an I.Q. of 100 or less, but long for those earlier days.

[Music Lover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBrisket (if we can trust snopes): snopes two headlines debunking.

Who checks the fact checkers? Snopes won't say how they vet their fact checkers, so I guess you just have to trust them, lol:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevle.../#741f53dd227f

[JoeWras]

Ultimately everything has a bias. We have to realize that.

As for snopes. I used to really like it! I liked Barbara's lighthearted style, but it also came through that she really wanted to do her best to present things as best that they were, even sometimes admitting her leanings.

When she disappeared, the site changed to something very corporate, and clearly was geared up to become a money making machine. I'm not sure what the employees bring with them. I at least felt I knew what she brought.

[Koolau]

I am much more concerned about "news" which is NOT presented than what news IS presented (fake, deceptive, factually true or whatever.) When I hear a story which peaks my interest and then can not find any other source, I begin to wonder about 1) Is the news fake - probably difficult for me to decide if only one outlet takes it on. 2) Why have all the other outlets decided not to air it? - Do they consider it "fake"? If so, why don't they present it and call it fake? Why don't they show WHY it's fake and thus dis their competition? But if it's actually "true" why do they not consider it news-worthy.

When this issue has been "debated", I've actually heard news outlets state that they simply don't have time for "EVERY story. I no longer believe it when I hear news outlets say that "some stories just don't deserve the precious air time - there's only so much of it to go around." I call BS on that. If you turn on ANY cable news outlet (and all the biggies have them) there are 24 hours in every day, yet typically less than a dozen stories are hyped and less than twice that are mentioned. Half a dozen stories are presented over and over and over until something else comes along to replace them. There IS plenty of time to mention ANY story (and IN DEPTH) of even limited general interest. So, it's (at best) a business decision not to air a story that other(s) are presenting or, (at worst) blatant bias. My BS detector runs toward the latter - especially when it seems on its surface to be more than just "The Cherry Trees Are Blossoming Again." Neglecting that one I can forgive - but, oddly, that's one EVERY news outlet covers and every year. Yeah, it's sort of general interest, but has very little affect on most of us. I wouldn't drop everything and book a flight to DC just to see it.

My gut tells me the term "fake news" will have run its course within a year or so. We'll be off to a new term with a more current political spin to it. Truly "fake" news has been with us since the earliest news. What I want is a way to sort it all out. If someone wants to have a so-called "fact checking" service, I guess that's fine. But sometimes the facts can be right, but the conclusion still be wrong - or at least debatable.

As always, I could be wrong so YMMV.

[FIREmenow]

There's also plenty of fake facts, and fake fact-checking around.

So that's a thing.

[dixonge]

Looks like they have some great people advising this - Jeff Jarvis, Guy Kawasaki, plus Wales himself.

Think about it - when's the last time you checked an encyclopedia, either paper or digital versions? No, never. I haven't done that in over a decade. Wikipedia has absolutely *killed* all competitors. And it's based on crowd-sourced, curated content. It's not perfect, but it's magnitudes better than most other sources.

If they can replicate that for the more fast-moving news media, they might kill a lot of other news businesses as well. If that means I could have a great unbiased valid source for news, worth it -- totally.

[Music Lover]

I'm thankful that the internet has taken the away the monopoly that much of the media has enjoyed for decades and now everyone has access to alternative news sources. Prior to that, it was close to impossible to verify stories or find alternative/differing viewpoints.

[Montecfo]

Unfortunately, most of these efforts will just be trying to "validate" news that is fake or slanted.

Fact check? Who is fact-checking the fact-checkers? Politifact and Snopes carry their own political bias. Wapo? Don't get me started.

And you said "professional journalists"? there are not many left. if you noticed, many were caught aiding their favorite party or politician during the last election.

Fact is, journalists have always had their thumb on the scales. What has changed is we have many sources of news now. Wise and curious folks can investigate and get to the facts.

Having said that, I expect there is a strong market for news that is middle of the road. An outlet with that approach and integrity would be quite popular IMHO.

[audreyh1]

New organizations are owned by large corporations. They are mostly interested in the bottom line - what sells - and don't want to pay for investigative journalism anymore.

[Luck_Club]

Quote:

Originally Posted by oneill225 A hot topic. Just what is "fake" news, anyway? Is a misleading headline fake news? Is telling half the story (in a fully truthful way) fake news? We can hope that journalists will be able to set aside their personal biases when developing stories, but humans are not objective thinkers.

Here in lies the problem. Journalist and editorial staffs have lost all sense of their primary duty, which is to report the facts both pro and con. My local paper is so politically aligned with 1 party, you never hear an opposing fact even when a "grand press promoted plan" falls apart.

I used to find the financial times out of london to be more even keeled, but even that has become a propaganda machine. Believe it or not I have more faith in the reporting by the English version of the China daily.

[CaptTom]

I try to seek differing points of view, and like to think I'm staying outside of any one "bubble."

Is it possible to help someone who's so deeply entrenched in one very biased, partisan viewpoint as to seem almost like a cult member?

I'm OK with rooting for your home team (even though most of the players are not from your home town.) I'm even OK with rooting for your favorite political party, even though not all of their platform conforms with your core beliefs and preferences.

What I can't comprehend is living in a bubble where everything the other party wants will bring doomsday, and everything your own party wants is perfect.

Political discussion is out of the question. No facts or logic will convince this person that any member of "their" party has ever done or said anything wrong, or that the opposing party is anything but evil or has ever done anything right.

How do you talk sense to someone who is that caught up in a cult like this?

[Nemo2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptTom Political discussion is out of the question. No facts or logic will convince this person that any member of "their" party has ever done or said anything wrong, or that the opposing party is anything but evil or has ever done anything right. How do you talk sense to someone who is that caught up in a cult like this?

What I find irritating are people who insist on disseminating outrageous claims, when a modicum of internet searching could unearth, (often photographic), evidence to completely refute their stances.

I'm just as PO'd at people ostensibly on my 'side' of the political spectrum since their irrationality diminishes 'our' position.

[travelover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Music Lover I'm thankful that the internet has taken the away the monopoly that much of the media has enjoyed for decades and now everyone has access to alternative news sources. Prior to that, it was close to impossible to verify stories or find alternative/differing viewpoints.

I'm with you. I've never forgiven them for faking the moon landing.

[Music Lover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptTom What I can't comprehend is living in a bubble where everything the other party wants will bring doomsday, and everything your own party wants is perfect. Political discussion is out of the question. No facts or logic will convince this person that any member of "their" party has ever done or said anything wrong, or that the opposing party is anything but evil or has ever done anything right. How do you talk sense to someone who is that caught up in a cult like this?

I know a person like that. I tried facts and reason a couple times, and gave a couple examples where the person they hate did exactly the same thing that the person they support did, but it was only "bad" the time that the person they hate did it.

I will no longer discuss politics with them...if we're in a group gathering and she says something particularly stupid, I might sneak in a quick joke or an undeniable fact that she can't disprove, and then will try to change the subject in an attempt to bring some relief to myself and others. I don't have the time, energy, or desire to deprogram a cultist.

[ls99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Music Lover Who checks the fact checkers? Snopes won't say how they vet their fact checkers, so I guess you just have to trust them, lol: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevle.../#741f53dd227f

I have come to distrust the fact checkers, whoever they may be.

Many years ago I found the password of a computer security company.

Their password was (with enough changes to protect the real one) trust no one

I like that mindset.