Combating Fake News

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
There's also plenty of fake facts, and fake fact-checking around.

So that's a thing.:banghead:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.:mad:

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.:facepalm:
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
+1000. If you figure that out, let me know. It's so common nowadays, it's hard to have a civilized conversation on many topics these days, especially politics. Must be why our mods (understandably) won't touch politics with an 11 foot pole...
 
i love fake news

when i was in the army my parents would send me the national enquirer it was hugely entertaining. now it comes from major news organizations that at 1 time had a legit reporting base. Walter Cronkite has been gone for years, now i view most of them as used car salesmen. i think used car salesmen have more ethics
 
+1000. If you figure that out, let me know. It's so common nowadays, it's hard to have a civilized conversation on many topics these days, especially politics. Must be why our mods (understandably) won't touch politics with an 11 foot pole...

This is easy...you just say "you're right" that will stop the conversation and you can move on and not get so heated.
 
There's also plenty of fake facts, and fake fact-checking around.

So that's a thing.:banghead:

Yes, the fake lists that purport to list fake news sites but are in themselves fake lists really bother me. They are from one side or the other trying to take out the opposition.
 
My undergraduate degree was in journalism. I can hardly stand to read most "journalism" today. Nobody knows how to write, let alone proofread.

I combat fake news the same way I combat spam offers in my email: with critical thinking and life experience. If somebody has an axe to grind, I can usually hear the rumbling. Not always, but usually.
 
My undergraduate degree was in journalism. I can hardly stand to read most "journalism" today. Nobody knows how to write, let alone proofread.

I combat fake news the same way I combat spam offers in my email: with critical thinking and life experience. If somebody has an axe to grind, I can usually hear the rumbling. Not always, but usually.

To your point, if they were better writers you might have a more difficult time picking them out :flowers:
 
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.
Nothing is taboo. It just takes fortitude to tell others how screwed up their views are. No problem here.
 
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?
You tell them your version of truth & continue no matter what they say. Don't give in to their nonsense. All it takes is fortitude.
 
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.
And the existing "fact checking" sites don't fill me with hope for this Wiki effort. If a candidate or news story claims that Columbus is the capital of Ohio, then that can be fact checked. But if they claim that the US is not getting adequate information from Pakistan, that is an assessment/statement of opinion that is not subject to fact checking, whatever the AP thinks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom