Combating Fake News

[easysurfer]

Don't know about you, but I'm sick of all the fake news.

This could be something good. Looks like there's gonna be a new Wiki in town.

With fake news continuing to dominate the discussion about the future of the media and role of social networks in spreading it, many in the tech world have tried to come up with ways to fight this new cancer. Various pronouncements have been made by Google, Facebook and Twitter about tweaking their algorithms. But it’s hard to get away from the fact that human beings are probably going to have to be involved somewhere along the line.

Step forward a new project from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. Today he launches a crowd-funding campaign for Wikitribune. This will be a “wiki-style” attack on the purveyors of fake news by teaming up professional journalists and community contributors to produce “fact-checked, global news stories”.

What Wales is hoping is that an army of contributors will help individual journalists vet the facts using a variety of sources such as full transcripts, video and audio interviews.

The content will be free and the business model based on monthly subscriptions by communities which commission the journalists. Wales hopes advertising won’t ever be a part of the project in fact.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/24/j...ombat-fake-news-with-wiki-powered-journalism/

Evidence based journalism, what I creative concept. A long long time ago, wasn't that called "Walter Cronkite"?

 

[Music Lover]

I'm sick of fake news, too. But, Google, Fakebook, and Twitter have been proven to be biased and they are the last people I'd trust to monitor fake news.

 

[Midpack]

There's more and more almost real time fact checking (it's an industry now!) every election cycle, but it doesn't seem to impact candidates for the most part. You could argue truth has continued to lose ground in spite of fact checking, more "news" sources than ever, and easier access to info than ever. So I have my doubts about the initiative in the OP no matter how sophisticated the algorithms.

And fake news has blossomed because people consume it, and pass it in to their like minded friends to use against "the other side." If "we" consciously rejected fake news, it would die off, but I'm not holding my breath in this increasingly partisan world. Most fake news is easily disproved, but people pass it along anyway, often adding hyperbole along the way. It just happened in a thread here a few weeks ago...and this is a relatively bright audience.

IMHO the answer to fake news (and blind partisanship) is to consciously consume news from as many POVs as you can. Think. And decide for yourself. If something sounds far fetched, check it out instead of proliferating bad information.

Why does someone else have to find truth for us?

We get what we deserve...

 

[Big_Hitter]

And fake news has blossomed because people consume it, and pass it in to their like minded friends to use against "the other side." If "we" consciously rejected fake news, it would die off, but I'm not holding my breath in this increasingly partisan world.

We get what we deserve...

yep - those that live in echo chambers keep fake news going

fake news: "information that doesn't fit with your political bias"

 

[easysurfer]

My take on the article is this try is more old school. Not algorithm based like the tech companies.

In a statement Wales said “Wikitribune is news by the people and for the people. This will be the first time that professional journalists and citizen journalists will work side-by-side as equals writing stories as they happen, editing them live as they develop and at all times backed by a community checking and re-checking all facts.”

Wouldn't surprise me if to counter act this effort there will be sites that pop up and say "No, WE are the fact-checked site".

Time will tell if this effort will work, but I'll give this effort a chance. Either that or stick I will have to stick TMZ and People magazine as the most credible sources .

 

[oneill225]

Who decides what is fake?

A hot topic.

My view is that the marketplace of ideas should remain uncensored. Even if it was possible to label every "news" story "fake" or "real", we would need another body to review those "fact" checkers to determine whether they were being honest (and another to check that body and on and on). It is simply not possible to fact check and label the vast amount of information found on the internet and mass media in a way that would be reliable and fair.

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. Subjectivity in how a story is presented will always affect the final product. Even more important is what is left out of the story or what stories will be told. Bias by omission is how to avoid the "fake news" label. Is there an official fact checker who has the resources to research and present the other side of the story? Again, who fact checks them?

In a courtroom, two opposing views are presented and a judge/jury must decide where the truth lies. As consumers of "news" we must act like the jury by reviewing multiple sources and reports of the "facts". Relying on a small number of fact checkers to tell you what is "real" would be like eliminating the prosecutor at a trial. It may make things easier, but it will not lead to the truth.

 

[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.

 

[Chuckanut]

What really bother me is new reporting this is accurate as far as it goes, but due to prejudice or ignorance or both it does not go far enough thus leading people to a mistaken conclusion. The best lies have an element of truth in them.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

There are 2 types of fake news, the first is real fake news that is placed out there as click bait, because the authors somehow according to what I have read get paid for it. Facebook is rampant with it, Twitter too I am sure.

The other type is not really fake news, it is denial of the facts, thus in the consumers mind is by default fake. Say it/Rrint it enough times and it is guaranteed that a lot of folk will believe it. THAT is Dangerous and very worrisome.

 

[Big_Hitter]

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.

a few weeks ago 60 minutes ran a piece about fake news

one spot was about an attorney in CA that stopped practicing law to run a fake news site - certainly more lucrative

 

[Winemaker]

Fake news will always be with us, since everyone has some kind of agenda.

I don't know how many times I've read on the front page " Low interest rates hurt seniors, retirees, and savers" but buried back in the business section it reads " Borrowers, home buyers, enjoy low rates!". All in the same paper, same day.

But not only fake news a problem, but the lack of reporting a story that is ignored.
Bigger problem yet.

Also, as a person involved in several mining related new stories over the years, facts are stretched and sensationalized and just untrue. If it bleeds it leads. Knowing from personal experience, I don't believe most of what I see on TV because of outright misinformation.

Hell, the local paper can't even get student athlete's names right when writing stories about local high school games. It's a kids 15 minutes of fame in a public forum and the reporter can't get a kids name right?

 

[capjak]

TBreaking news this just in and it's a really big story it will change everything you thought about ...... after this commercial break.....

Several main stream media outlets have become more and more biased such that they take some facts and ignore others to make their listeners/watchers happy and watch more. The fact check sights do the same based on journalistic bias. Although technically not false reporting it is reporting of the facts that they want vs the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Media has become one big OP Ed rather than news.....IMO

Ridiculous headline get people to click/read/pick up a paper.....

 

[CaliforniaMan]

Fake news, stores that are just made up, and its more common sidekick, distorted news, that is taking a side, misrepresenting issues, overemphasizing or omitting some events, both exist because there is a market for it.

If there were a market for presenting facts with the intent to inform the audience, so they could consider the issues to make good decisions, then we would have that.

From all the major news sources all we currently see are poorly thought out editorials posing as news. I am all for editorials, but not editorials posing as news.

Now on top of this we are getting purely made up stuff.

I wish this group well, but doubt they will have much success.

 

[JoeWras]

a few weeks ago 60 minutes ran a piece about fake news:

60 Minutes was one of the originals in fakery. They hyped a story about "sudden acceleration" and engineered the problem for their program. A little part of me died that day because honestly, I trusted everything I saw on TV news. This woke me up. I'm very distrustful of all media now.

It also points out that it may take a jury or at least professional investigation to really vet out fake stuff. (Someone alluded to this earlier.) Instead, I see a lot of "fake" called out just for disagreement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_unintended_acceleration

60 Minutes aired a report titled "Out of Control" on November 23, 1986,[34] featuring interviews with six people who had sued Audi after reporting unintended acceleration, including footage of an Audi 5000 ostensibly displaying a surge of acceleration while the brake pedal was depressed.[35][36] Subsequent investigation revealed that 60 Minutes had not disclosed they had engineered the vehicle's behavior — fitting a canister of compressed air on the passenger-side floor, linked via a hose to a hole drilled into the transmission[34][35] — the arrangement executed by one of the experts who had testified on behalf of a plaintiff in a then pending lawsuit against Audi's parent company.[37]

 

[Car-Guy]

Don't know about you, but I'm sick of all the fake news.

They all have their agendas but some (many) are so grossly bias, I can't watch them at all.

Evidence based journalism, what I creative concept. A long long time ago, wasn't that called "Walter Cronkite"?

Makes me wonder now how genuine he was back in the day too.

 

[Midpack]

This woke me up. I'm very distrustful of all media now.

I hear you, but it's all we've got, so how to proceed?

The silver lining in today's expanse of media, you can count on both sides to fully exploit their POV. So as long as you make sure you listen to a variety of sources on both sides of a given issue, you probably know way more than you ever would have in the good old days of Walter Cronkite (or whoever you trusted). Back in the day, it was far more difficult to check out stories, today you can do it in minutes!

It doesn't take that much effort to verify news for yourself these days. People say they don't have time, but they somehow find time to keep up in great detail with Dancing With The Stars, their favorite sports teams, their hobby/activity news, their favorite forums, etc. It's not unreasonable to devote some time to civics...especially if you're retired.

 

[Car-Guy]

Over the last decade or so, I have learned not to trust just about any news story 100%. Why? Well there are a few areas/topics that I'm very knowledgeable. (might even say I'm a subject matter expert in a few areas - albeit, very few ) Whenever they run a story related to these subject matters, I almost always find major errors, absolutely incorrect comments or at the very least grossly misleading statements. Even giving them the benefit of the doubt on "their context" they are very often just flat wrong. I'm not talking about their opinions on a topic, just the black and white facts.

So, if I can find so many misleading or wrong statements in the areas where I really know the subject matter well, it makes me wonder how wrong they are in areas where I just have a basic understanding and don't realize how far off they are.

 

[savory]

IMO, (and I am guessing most will agree) fake news is not new. Our conversation about it is more intense but not new.

So, what drives our negative and powerful reaction to fake news these days that did not exist in the same way previously? Too difficult to manage? Too many cable TV stations? Declining newspapers? FB and other outlets allows for customized news from friends confirming our point of view? Others?

Is it possible to get it back under control? If so, how?

 

[Bir48die]

You just have to dissect everything you read & watch. Many of the articles in my paper are taken from four sources (NYT, WP, AP, LAT). When I read an article I look at the wording. It doesn't in the whole look like anything is wrong. Then you look at the makeup of the sentences and how they are used to persuade. Same in television. I also have to laugh when I see Scott Pelley with his serious face all the time and how much all of this means to him.

Just read a great article in Politico on news within the bubble

The Media Bubble is Real — And Worse Than You Think - POLITICO Magazine

Very enlightening. I have actually stopped watching much of the news and it saddens me because I used to have it on 5:30-7:00 for many years.

 

[Midpack]

You just have to dissect everything you read & watch.

I have actually stopped watching much of the news and it saddens me because I used to have it on 5:30-7:00 for many years.

+1. I hear the headlines like everyone else, but I then seek out as many different POV's as I can depending on the level of importance/my interest. Fortunately anything you want is just a click away these days. Being spoon fed news from any one or two sources is probably not very reliable, even the few left who you might think are neutral.

 

[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]

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.