I talked with a younger client (late 20's) this week here in Oregon who works in tech marketing who voted for Trump. He's very smart and well rounded. He told me he reads Breitbart and how large the readership is here and abroad. He explained how extensive the social media network is for information that he filters for his views. He called out the MSM and voted for Trump in hopes that he can unhinge the political establishment. It sounds like there's enough substance to what Trump symbolizes for him that he can ignore the Fake News elements. I respect this person's mind and had never talked politics after knowing him for at least 4 years. mind blown.
Truth is obviously important in civility, but I recognized long ago that in politics in particular, information, messaging, and communication is a continuously shifting illusion. To get people to act, often the truth isn't enough to get people to feel how you need them to feel for success to occur. Everyone does this and how far you push it is an art. What Trump and Bannon have done is on the tactical leading edge and will be both attacked and admired.
Which is more depressing/surprising? There is fake news on social media or that people are getting news on social media.
I find this particular tempest in a teapot to be one of the least persuasive of the purported explanations for Trump's win. How are these fake online articles substantively different than the National Enquirer headlines saying that Hillary has 6 months to live or that Cruz's father shot JFK? People somehow lose the ability to filter bull$#@! because they're reading it online? Why is Facebook being pressured to censor but HEB is not?
This is a great question.Originally Posted by WBT
The Internet is still relatively new and we haven't learned how to parse it and incorporate it fully. We know the demarcations between good print and bad print journalism, but it gets fuzzier online.
Also, fake news in print tends to be less partisan and more celebrity focused, though the recent election of a reality TV star is helping to blur even those lines.
An actual difference is that Facebook custom-creates an individual reality for each person. They actively serve someone fake news and don't even present the whole magazine rack like a supermarket would.
Good stuff to think about.
Real news sites feed debate questions to their favorite candidates.
Especially on the topic of Donald Trump, these "long established news sources" have shown themselves to be biased and irresponsible in the extreme. That did not stop on election day, but continues as we speak, and will surely continue onwards, going forward.
News stories about Trump by the "mainstream media" should at this point be treated by default as the partisan hit pieces that they so routinely are.
I'd like to say $#@! THE MSM RIGHT IN THE PUSSY but I won't because I go high when they go low.
Here is a really good article on this topic from The Hill, which correctly identifies the sudden motivation behind this issue to be the panic of the traditional media at their declining ratings, the loss of Hillary Clinton and the sense of need the people associated with these groups have to stifle news that is not left leaning:
The media needs to get off their 'fake news' false narrative
Democrats lost the presidential election because they nominated an unlikable, entrenched bureaucrat who was knee-deep in damning scandals. But rather than take responsibility for this massive and embarrassing failure, liberals and the so-called “mainstream media” have found something on which to try and place the blame: “fake” news sites, which they claim flooded Facebook with misinformation during the election cycle.
Over the last few days, prominent news outlets have published countless headlines like “Fake Facebook News Is a Disaster for Political Discourse,” “Here’s How Facebook Actually Won Trump the Presidency,” and “Facebook’s Fake News Threatens Democracy.”
Even President Obama is pushing the narrative. Speaking alongside German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Thursday, Obama said during an international trip,
In an age where there’s so much active misinformation — and it’s packaged very well and it looks the same when you see it on a Facebook page or you turn on your television … if everything seems to be the same and no distinctions are made, then we won’t know what to protect. We won’t know what to fight for.It all sounds very scary.
Do fake news stories appear in Facebook news feeds at times? Yes. But should Facebook take action to get rid of the pages posting them? Absolutely not. Trying to define a “fake” story is a slippery a slope — and allowing Facebook, another institution, or worse – the government — to define it for us is dangerous because it could shut down debate.
For example, is an outlet that makes posts on Facebook denying climate change promoting “fake” stories? The answer isn’t always clear. The market ought to determine what is worthy of being in our newsfeeds and what is not. Facebook pages that continuously blast out blatantly fake stories to its fans will inevitably lose credibility along with their audience. We don’t need Facebook to punish the jokers, because its users will do that on their own.
But the recent outrage about “fake” news stories is not really about fake news. It’s about something much more insidious: silencing news or opinion that is not left-leaning. Established outlets like New York Magazine are circulating a blacklist of fake news websites to “watch out for.” Nearly all of the cited examples are conservative sites, and many like Breitbart News, Independent Journal Review, and Michelle Malkin’s Twitchy, are far from fake. Breitbart News, for example, invests ample resources in hiring full time real reporters who produce unique and interesting content. Sure, liberals may not like some of Breitbart’s headlines, but the site’s hard news stories are substantive and factual.
The left-leaning mainstream media is losing readership and credibility by the day (Americans’ trust in the mass media dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history this September) — and now they’re panicking. These outlets are provoking outrage to pressure Facebook into silencing conservative blogs and news sites, which have been conveniently labeled “fake,” because they see it as an opportunity to stomp out competition.
But mainstream outlets only have themselves to blame for their dwindling traffic, influence, and ability to control the political narrative. During the 2016, the mainstream media was flagrant in its bias. was attacked ad nauseum, while Clinton’s scandals were largely downplayed or given a free pass. Instead of helping Clinton, however, the blatant bias had the opposite effect: many voters tuned out from established outlets altogether and turned to conservative alternatives sites instead. Like it or not, Clinton lost the election and Trump is our next president. Full stop.
Instead of whining, pointing fingers, and using outrage to try and take out conservative news sites, it’s time for liberals to grow up and do some self-reflection. Liberals lost the White House because of a corrupt, untrustworthy, and unlikable candidate, and a media that would go to any length to cover for her.
Last edited by Spartacus; 11-19-2016 at 11:02 AM.
When you turn on CNN and their anchor is telling the audience that it's "illegal to read Wikileaks" and that only CNN is allowed to read them and impart the knowledge to you, yeah, it's not hard to imagine why people are getting their news elsewhere. When they invite a conservative pundit on and as soon as he brings up Wikileaks they cut him off and act like it was a technical malfunction, you don't have to wonder why alternate media is gaining steam.
The MSM have abdicated their role as real journalists trying to educate the populace about current events. They've become a ratings driven clown car who just want views, clicks, and likes. Throw in the fact that they've given up even trying to pretend to not be biased and well, why would anyone give a $#@! what they have to say? This "fake news" $#@! is just a desperate attempt to stem the tide of their failing ratings and growing irrelevance.
The producers, editors, and journalists are true acolytes for the left- their cause motivates more than ratings and advertising I would say.
The New York Times weighs in with a really pushy piece of writing on this question, insisting that Facebook has a duty to put a stop to "Fake News". Whose perspective should that be determined from according to the NYT? Why theirs, of course.
Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook was interviewed for the piece. Much to his credit, he realizes that this is for Facebook a Gordian knot that has to be untied a-fresh every single day, forever. While he recognizes this is a problem, resolving this in the partisan way that the NYT is advocating is just not what Facebook is about. The purpose of Facebook is to provide a social networking service that is a front for the sale of advertising and other products, which a great many people earn money from.
Getting involved in this question to the extent that the NYT is suggesting does a lot more to undermine that purpose than it does to advance it. It would be a source of unending controversy and aggravation to its users, which Facebook surely would like to have less of, not more. It would also be expensive and administratively extremely complicated to administer.
This is so lacking in self-awareness and so saturated with the denial of "traditional journalism's" spectacular failures of exactly the same sort that he is attributing to the non-traditional media that it is a little hard for me to believe that he is really this ignorant about himself and the sins of his profession.Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook Must Defend the Truth
Friday night, the Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg went on his vast social network to convince an expanding chorus of critics — including the departing president of the United States — that he honest-to-goodness wants to combat the “fake news” that is running wild across his site and others, and turning our politics into a paranoiac fantasy come to life.
“We’ve been working on this problem for a long time and we take this responsibility seriously,” he wrote. “We’ve made significant progress, but there is more work to be done,” he continued, listing various steps Facebook was taking, like making it easier to report bad information and enlisting fact-checking organizations.
It was heartening to hear, especially after his earlier assertion that it was “crazy” to believe that misinformation on Facebook had affected the presidential election in any real way — despite copious evidence that it was disturbingly in the mix, whether it directly swung the result or not.
But as Mr. Zuckerberg went on to say that Facebook had to be careful not to mistakenly block “accurate content,” he added this: “We do not want to be arbiters of truth ourselves,” which was why he said Facebook would continue to rely on “our community and trusted third parties.”
His statement pointed up how much Facebook struggles to find the balance between its mission to be a free-expression utopia for its 1.8 billion users and its responsibility to protect them from all that is defamatory, dangerous (like terrorist propaganda) and untrue.
But more to the point, it appeared to buy into the notion that truth is relative at a time when that notion has to finally go away. Do you really need an outside arbiter to determine whether a video suggesting — without basis — that Hillary Clinton was involved in John F. Kennedy Jr.’s fatal plane crash in 1999 should be allowed to stand? Really?
Truth doesn’t need arbiters. It needs defenders. And it needs them now more than ever as the American democracy staggers into its next uncertain phase.
With a mainstream news media that works hard to separate fact from fiction under economic and political threat, Facebook — which has contributed to that economic threat by gobbling up so much of the online advertising market — is going to have a special responsibility to do its part. Just imagine what things will look like if the unsavory elements that tore through the 2016 election — false narratives, fake news and aggressive efforts to delegitimize traditional journalism — come back into play as Donald J. Trump presses to enact his agenda. If the past week provided any indication of where politics are going, the next four years are going to require an all-hands-on-deck effort to keep the national conversation honest.
And then the author goes on to rail against conspiracy theories and the like, blah, blah, blah, before outlining a proposal for a conspiracy among "traditional journalism" for a "hyperfactual counterinsurgency that treats every false meme as a baby Hitler to be killed in its crib with irrefutable facts."
I am not making that up. Here it is quoted in context. Or click the link above and go to the bottom of the page. See for yourselves:
Did I just read that in print at the New York Times? Bwahahahaha! Of course they consider themselves to be the source and arbiters of all truth and fairness, but especially during this last election cycle, they have clearly demonstrated, time and time again, that they are anything but.That’s why people who care about the truth — citizens, journalists and, let’s hope, social media giants like Facebook, too — will have to come up with a solution to this informational nihilism, fast.
It’s easier said than done. The combination of attacks seeking to delegitimize serious news organizations and a drop in overall trust in the news media has made many people wary of legitimate fact-checking. And, as my colleague John Herrman noted last weekend, politicized voices can easily drown honest journalism all too easily on social media.
There is growing talk of an ambitious journalistic collaboration to beat back the tide. Industry thinkers and leaders are coming together online to brainstorm solutions, as Jeff Jarvis, the City University of New York journalism professor, and Eli Pariser, the Upworthy co-founder, have done. (Check them out online.) And I’d say it’s high time that television news — with its still-huge audiences — gets into the act with more than just token gestures at fact-checking.
But this much seems clear: The moment calls for some sort of hyperfactual counterinsurgency that treats every false meme as a baby Hitler to be killed in its crib with irrefutable facts.
This article smacks of a desperation to "control the narrative" in an obsessive and even almost a maniacal way. I get that the Democrat left is feeling despondent about their political losses right now. I am well aware of how that feels, having spent most of the last eight years burdened with a range of feelings of this same sort, which after less than two weeks, they are only just beginning to experience. I don't want to hurt these people, but there are things in our society that are more important than their process of catharsis or their struggle for intellectual political dominance.
These "journalists" are supposed to be more than anyone else in our society, defenders of freedom of speech. No, I am not referring to Facebook's freedom of speech, although they have that too. I am referring to the freedom for a diverse political dialogue that includes opinions that are frequently offensive, not infrequently dishonest, and nearly always in a state of disagreement and conflict.
Let's remember, we fight with words, in the streets, on the internet, in the newspapers, on television, in Congress and across the country, as a replacement for fighting with guns to institute political changes. If people like these were to have their way, the only "truth" that would be permitted would be truth arbitrated, created and approved by them. Their opponents would have no voice, which would leave their only form of redress to affect political change as the violence and bloodshed that democracy exists to avoid.
Do we really want to go back to that? That is not 'progress,' it is regress. Those people who call themselves 'progressives' should try to appreciate that better.
No one is calling for removal of opinions. But removal of stories that are claiming to stare facts but are not.
Case in point from Austin. One guy posts abouta line of buses near a Trump protest. He wonders if protestors are being bused in. The tweet gets spread, is posted on Reddit, and then some blog/news sites post it as fact. The buses were there for an unrelated software conference. But millions are now under the belief that someone was paying for the protests.
But ultimately the real problem is that some people don't even remotely care about the truth. They only want reassurance that they're side is correct and the other side is bad. How did we get there and how do we go back?
I'll give the hate pushers credit for figuring out how to reach people where they are on social media. Since that's likely coming to an end, it will be interesting to see if they can get people to come to them instead.
I agree with you on "fighting with words" being a replacement for "fighting with guns." However, there is a tipping point where words can increase the likelihood of guns. Especially when the words are lies designed only to encourage division, anger, and hatred. We are right on the edge of it. If Trump were to actually go through with all his campaign promises, we would end up in actual civil war. I don't think you understand how many state and municipal governments are opposed to many of the most xenophobic and anti-civil rights promises. It isn't just protesters in the streets. I'm not sure Trump understands that either. Pence does, and in spite of him being ideologically far to the right of Trump, he'd have probably openly given up on all but trimming gay rights a little bit. However, he isn't going to be President. So we sit here waiting to see whether Trump should be taken literally or not. And, in Trump, you have someone that only seeks to exacerbate the problem. If a Hamilton cast member had a car accident, Trump would trump up wild speculation rather than giving a polite statement on it. Its a recipe for disaster for a leader to behave this way.
Last edited by DSA; 11-21-2016 at 09:52 AM.
My guess is that Facebook will allow people to identify fake stories. Then it will be reviewed by a person. This already occurs today with other reported content. Over time, they will understand if someone is prone to post fake stories or if someone is good/bad at identifying fake stories. Their algorithms will take that into account. It won't be perfect.
I imagine that FB will rarely reject stories but rather not share them widely. It's been discussed here before but not everyone realizes that your shares are not automatically seen by all of your friends. FB determines what they want to see.
In seriousness, Twitter has actually been working very closely with the govt to close suspected ISIS twitter accounts. The problem is that they don't have a captcha to weed out terrorists. Social media will always been behind in removing twitter account.
Or did he say something else that you won't say?
Politicians and the traditional news media spin and publish stories that are flatly false on a routine basis. Sometimes they do this by accident, but oftentimes they know very well what they are doing. Until the traditional media is prepared to voluntarily have its publications subject to this same level of scrutiny, then it is really difficult to take these sorts of campaigns - especially immediately after a national election where the Democrat left lost - as anything other than the largely partisan efforts to stifle the speech of their opponents that they obviously are.
Are you really unaware that the left engages in their own propaganda, spin and "Fake News"?
As far as the civil war talk, we were just as close two months ago, but with the other side on the verge of starting it. The cities and municipalities that you speak of are legal entities. It is the people that matter, not just the elites who run things. This sort of paternalistic view of the world that you have is very troubling, FR. If we have a civil war at this point, this type of an attitude by certain people is very likely to be the cause of it, just as it was during the American revolution back in the 1700's.
At an profession/industry level, I believe journalism should enforce their own standards and rate news sources accordingly. Obviously some may view that as political or biased itself but we should be able to have some level of understanding that a news source is viewed as following ethical standards or not. Even if the content is controversial.
A simple example I remember seeing and actually arguing with someone about:
It is a parody video. Yet she was sharing this from "legitimate sounding" websites and telling all her friends that Wooderson endorsed Trump. I replied simply that "this is a parody video -- he did not endorse Trump." And I got a cascade of argument back from her and her friends that "yes he did!"
Spin happens, and spin is important. But let's set that aside for a moment. FACTS are things that actually happen, and are objectively verifiable. Either Wooderson publicly endorsed Trump, or he did not (note -- he did not). Yet, people are seeing something they want to see (hey, pretty boy Texan endorsed Donald!), posted by a legit-sounding site as a fact, and then they (1) disseminate it as a fact, and (2) DEFEND it as a fact.
It blows me away that we just don't give a $#@! about patently false information being disseminated as "news." Not something that you can argue about, not something that's a function of someone's deceptive spin, etc. etc., but OBJECTIVELY FALSE STATEMENTS being called true. WTF?
I've said they didn't? It certainly isn't as believed or as widespread as right wing fake news, however. I'm against all fake news. I know that's something you can't understand.Are you really unaware that the left engages in their own propaganda, spin and "Fake News"?
Except we weren't. Nobody was ever coming for you. Nobody ran on a campaign of coming for you. As long as you keep your gestapo out of cities, civil war won't happen. Everyone will simply sit back in a defensive posture like always. My point regarding legal entities is that, typically, unrest is conducted by a minority of people in a given municipality. That would not be the case here. Instead, you're talking about entities where 80%+ voted against Trump specifically because of the xenophobic rhetoric. This provides necessary organization to a resistance if one becomes needed. I agree that it probably won't become needed, but that will be because Trump is going to back down from actually rounding people up. Unfortunately, he loves rhetoric though, so the threat of it is always going to be there throughout his administration.As far as the civil war talk, we were just as close two months ago, but with the other side on the verge of starting it. The cities and municipalities that you speak of are legal entities. It is the people that matter, not just the elites who run things. This sort of paternalistic view of the world that you have is very troubling, FR. If we have a civil war at this point, this type of an attitude by certain people is very likely to be the cause of it, just as it was during the American revolution back in the 1700's.
He can even implement wrongheaded economic changes that $#@! up the economy for decades without civil war. That isn't what the concerns are about.
I don't have a paternalistic view. I have a "we need to all just get along because we are all here" view. I'd argue that you're trying to push a homogeneous small town view on a world you don't understand that is increasingly urban and integrated. While we both may live in bubbles, your bubble continues to shrink. And honestly, I don't care what you do in your shrinking bubble, as long as you keep your hatred out of mine.
Last edited by FondrenRoad; 11-21-2016 at 10:47 AM.
Twitter and FB have an economic incentive to let it spread. We are talking about this AFTER THE ELECTION! We won't be talking about this in a month or a year. Both companies will be willing to once again overlook issues in the future. However, like any corporation, they will do a lot of soul searching and announce they will combat it in the future. Any future instances of fake news will be seen as a new issue with different challenges.
Conservatives will never leave either site. They might form new sites, but they will always come back and spread their stuff on larger platforms. Which is why they are winning right now. Say what you want, but they push their agenda fiercely and to a broader audience. They don't want to be stuck in a smaller platform and just push stories among themselves.
I can see progressives leaving to form future failures or leaving the sites altogether. They have less a desire to try to change the opinions of conservatives. Not to say that a lot don't engage in constant arguments, but the overall online presence of liberals/progressives is more about preaching to the choir. You can see it in the podcasts, blogs and sites they supported during the election.
So here is an example of "Fake News" published by NBC News:
That is "Fake News" being published on Twitter by traditional media behemoth NBC News.NBC News under fire for misleading tweets about Trump chief of staff's answer on Muslim registry
NBC News came under fire Sunday morning for two tweets that removed context from an answer Reince Priebus, President-elect Donald Trump's pick for White House chief of staff, offered on the idea of a Muslim registry.
Priebus appeared "Meet the Press" and was asked by host Chuck Todd whether he could rule out the idea of placing Muslims on a registry.
Here was the exchange:
TODD: Can you equivocally rule out a registry for Muslims?
PRIEBUS: Look, I’m not going to rule out anything. But, we are not going to have a registry based on religion.
The public relations account for NBC News tweeted out the exchange twice but left out the second part of Priebus' response:
"Can you rule out a registry for Muslims?" asks @ChuckTodd.
"I'm not going to rule out anything..." says @Reince on @MeetThePress #MTP
— NBC News PR (@NBCNewsPR) November 20, 2016
WATCH: WH Chief of Staff @Reince “not going to rule out anything” when asked about a possible Muslim registry. #MTPhttps://t.co/pSd0PZCuaa
— NBC News PR (@NBCNewsPR) November 20, 2016
The tweets quickly faced criticism.
"This quote is in fact opposite of what PR tweet indicates," tweeted Maggie Haberman, a political correspondent for The New York Times.
Charlie Warzel, a senior technology writer for BuzzFeed, called it an "irresponsible half-quote w/o even a link for context."
Others flooded the NBC News account with messages calling the tweets "misleading" and "dishonest."
A representative for NBC News declined to say whether the media organization would issue a retraction, but the Twitter account dug its heels in the sand in a reply to Haberman.
@maggieNYT Full @meetthepress answer for reference. He *does* say "I'm not going to rule out anything." pic.twitter.com/7PXxvfWEAg
— NBC News PR (@NBCNewsPR) November 20, 2016
Trump has often criticized the media, accusing it of unfairly covering his campaign and, more recently, his transition into office.
Does anyone disagree?
i, for one, just hope everyone is enjoying the irony of dsa's substantial participation on a fake news thread as much as me...
But the press won't change because it fuels outrage on both sides which leads to more clicks.
Football .. OC .. Basketball .. Baseball .. Other Sports .. RC Didn't Offer .. Gamboool
Varsity .. Hole in the Wall .. PCL .. Einstein's .. Nasty's .. GM Steakhouse .. NSAA .. Classics
Bada Bing .. Bernard .. Nerdz .. Can you help me with this? .. Shagslist .. Cloak Room .. Bellmont