Journalists Struggle To Define ‘Fake News’ Even As They Declare War On It

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Journalists Struggle To Define ‘Fake News’ Even As They Declare War On It


One website that the Washington Post labeled “fake news” — without providing a single piece of evidence — is threatening to sue the Post for defamation, after being included on a similar list.

In an article last summer, liberal New York Magazine writer Brian Feldman tried to argue that “conservative news” and “fake news” are the same thing.

That some liberal journalists are lumping in legitimate news organizations alongside objectively false sites while at the same time calling for censorship of fake news has lead to concerns that the crackdown on fake news sites — the actual influence of which remains unknown — will be used by liberals to censor their conservative competitors.

Forbes contributor Frank Miniter argued that some liberals are using the “fake news” controversy to invite “government control over First Amendment-protected speech or by asking Facebook and Twitter to become even bigger censors of certain views.” (RELATED: Former Facebook Insider: We Buried Conservative News)

In an interview with conservative site LifeZette, Media Research Center director of media analysis Tim Graham warned, “The danger here is that when liberals try to define ‘fake news,’ it can be defined as ‘fake angles,’ as in ‘things that should not be explored,’ like paying for protesters.” (RELATED: Anti-Trump Protests Funded By Left-Wing Charity)



Oh I think they have NO problem defining it ...... anything reported by a 'Conservative' News organization is FAKE in their minds, because it goes against the narrative
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Oh I think they have NO problem defining it ...... anything reported by a 'Conservative' News organization is FAKE in their minds, because it goes against the narrative

A huge problem is that they are ALL "fake news" sites/papers/programs. The only actual news is C-SPAN, but that takes a lot of time which most people don't have.

I listened to CNN yesterday while I was driving, and heard a guy on talking about Trump lying about Obama's BC, saying Trump never responded that Obama was born in the US. The host, surprisingly, said, "no, he did, he said specifically the president was born in HI". The guy said, "well, instead of defending Trump, who never recanted that the president was born overseas...." and the CNN host never corrected him a second time. She let the "fake news" of Trump go on as the last word. They ALL do it.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Let us not confuse "fake news" with "bias". Those are two different things, which often go hand in hand.

TP's example is text book: guest spews a lie, CNN host make a lame attempt to correct it, guest spews lie again, CNN host lets it go. Guest is peddling fake news; host is engaging in bias by not challenging their guest's false claims.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Fake news is no different than bias. The intent is the same. The delivery is a matter of style, not substance.

If I allow a guest to suggest trump is a lot like Hitler and I am simply being biased for supporting something I know is absurd it's no different than stating it as fact myself. You can't claim some blogger knows better and someone with all the resources of a news organization isn't required to. That's stupid.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Fake news is no different than bias. The intent is the same. The delivery is a matter of style, not substance.

If I allow a guest to suggest trump is a lot like Hitler and I am simply being biased for supporting something I know is absurd it's no different than stating it as fact myself. You can't claim some blogger knows better and someone with all the resources of a news organization isn't required to. That's stupid.

I think fake news and bias are different. If I report (or allow a guest to) something that is factually inaccurate ("Hillary Clinton kicks puppies to relieve stress"), that is fake news. If I report something with a twist ("The most adorable and highly qualified candidate for president of all time, Hillary Clinton, graced the audience with her fabulous thoughts and ideas, while a man reported to have potentially attacked women and is the least qualified presidential candidate of all time was also on the debate stage...."), that is bias. All of the pictures of Obama with the halo were bias - they didn't photoshop those things in, they just adjusted the camera to give him a halo.

See the difference?
 

Grumpy

Well-Known Member
Jean Luc Picard "You told the truth up to a point. But a lie of omission is still a lie."

^Fake news, Picard isn't real.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I think fake news and bias are different. If I report (or allow a guest to) something that is factually inaccurate ("Hillary Clinton kicks puppies to relieve stress"), that is fake news. If I report something with a twist ("The most adorable and highly qualified candidate for president of all time, Hillary Clinton, graced the audience with her fabulous thoughts and ideas, while a man reported to have potentially attacked women and is the least qualified presidential candidate of all time was also on the debate stage...."), that is bias. All of the pictures of Obama with the halo were bias - they didn't photoshop those things in, they just adjusted the camera to give him a halo.

See the difference?


I see the difference and disagree. It's a difference without a distinction. We have a first amendment. It says NOTHING about any obligation to not be biased OR truthful. We tend to get butt hurt over this station or that being dishonest, lying, biased, in the tank for so and so while OURS is fair and trustworthy and all of that because we've removed ourselves from the equation. We, the people, have abdicated any sense of responsibility to be critical of our favorites in exchange for being ONLY critical of the other. That sort of thinking should not even be thought of AS thinking. It is simple Pavlovian response. This is THE problem in our politics; we excuse our guys, blame theirs, and the problem is ONLY we can hold OUR own responsible and same goes for them. If I write 'Bush is a baby killer' I can prove it. Same if I say Obama is a baby killer. I can also say Bush saves lives by taking others and I can say it about Obama and, if not prove it, can make a strong argument for it. Context and perspective is everything FOR the reader, the consumer.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I see the difference and disagree. It's a difference without a distinction. We have a first amendment. It says NOTHING about any obligation to not be biased OR truthful. We tend to get butt hurt over this station or that being dishonest, lying, biased, in the tank for so and so while OURS is fair and trustworthy and all of that because we've removed ourselves from the equation. We, the people, have abdicated any sense of responsibility to be critical of our favorites in exchange for being ONLY critical of the other. That sort of thinking should not even be thought of AS thinking. It is simple Pavlovian response. This is THE problem in our politics; we excuse our guys, blame theirs, and the problem is ONLY we can hold OUR own responsible and same goes for them. If I write 'Bush is a baby killer' I can prove it. Same if I say Obama is a baby killer. I can also say Bush saves lives by taking others and I can say it about Obama and, if not prove it, can make a strong argument for it. Context and perspective is everything FOR the reader, the consumer.
Your example is an example of bias. If you said, "Bush is a reptilian alien, born on Alpha Centuri, and sent here to take over our planet", I think we can agree that's not bias, that's dishonest.

I'm not talking about first amendment. I'm talking about people knowing the difference between fact and opinion. You are right to say you could argue Bush and Obama both are "baby killers" and both are arguably life savers. If you only report Bush is a life saver and Obama is a baby killer, you are selling bias. If you report Bush is a baby killer and Obama is really a 700 year old vampire, you are selling fake news.

We have libel and slander and defamation laws to address the lies that matter. Bias has been around in the media longer than the United States has existed, so I have no issues with it. I'm just differentiating it from "fake" news.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Your example is an example of bias. If you said, "Bush is a reptilian alien, born on Alpha Centuri, and sent here to take over our planet", I think we can agree that's not bias, that's dishonest.

I'm not talking about first amendment. I'm talking about people knowing the difference between fact and opinion. You are right to say you could argue Bush and Obama both are "baby killers" and both are arguably life savers. If you only report Bush is a life saver and Obama is a baby killer, you are selling bias. If you report Bush is a baby killer and Obama is really a 700 year old vampire, you are selling fake news.

We have libel and slander and defamation laws to address the lies that matter. Bias has been around in the media longer than the United States has existed, so I have no issues with it. I'm just differentiating it from "fake" news.


You're being extreme for the sake of making a point. We're talking so called 'fake' news. I hadn't even heard of this pizza joint so, I'm not even going to consider that because some obscure posting seen by only 500,000 people or so is not relevant when we're talking well over 100 million voters and their behavior.

In terms of relevant issues, it is 'fake' news to claim Bush lied about WMD. And it is also true. It is also biased. It is fake news to claim Obama isn't a US citizen. It is also true and it is also biased.

It the purest of terms, Bush did lie. Others would call it messaging the information. Clearly, when some report writer is all but told the boss wants the thing to read a certain way that is both lying and bias. Both fake and true. It is true that, in some contexts, the birth certificate wasn't clear cut. It's a flat out lie to blame then genesis of the issue on Trump. That said, in a certain context, it is true. It is certainly biased.


It is fake news to report that the administration says a spontaneous riot sparked by some video online somewhere, seen by handfuls of people, is responsible for the Benghazi battle. It is also true and it is also biased. Any reporter worth a damn, as well as their editors, knew, at the time, that story was bull ####. However, when it comes from the WH and they can probably find someone somewhere who can produce a FB posting about how 'angry' they were over the video, you report what the WH says. Then, your reporting engages in bias as to how it COULD be true. That said, it is every bit as much fake news as it is to say Bush is a reptilian alien. The media has been alluding to Trump being Hitler for months. This is fake news, profoundly, clearly. However, there are SOME traits that are similar and, thus, COULD be sorta Hitlerian. As for Bush, if you buy that we are all, at core, star dust, and we are, Bush has alien characteristics, as do we all. If you're arguing he has all these super powers to make 9/11 an inside job, made the weather bad in NOLA, it's all of a kind.

Fake news, for our purposes here, has to be close enough to sell suckers. That happens ALL the time in biased reporting. Two sides of the same coin. It is simply crazy to think Bill Clinton had something to do with the Mena airport and CIA drug running in Arkansas in the 80's but, over time, it looks like he was, at the very least, aware of it. It seems crazy to argue Bush 41 jumped on an SR71 as Reagan's veep and met with Iranian functionaries to get them to keep the hostages until Reagan took office but, really, is that totally our of the realm of possibilities? No. There is SOME evidence to suggest it. Same with Vince Foster. Same with the Obama gay sex stories, same with the Skull and Crossbones stuff at Yale, same with a lot of stories that, at one point or other, either were called fake or ended up being so. I heard that Muslim cabbies were told to stay away from the towers that morning, before the attacks. I also heard some Jews were told the same thing. I heard bombs were found in the Lincoln tunnel. Hell, lots of people STILL can't accept that Lee Harvey Oswald was just a kook that FBI and CIA knew about, considered harmless and then killed the President of the United States of America and that all of the cover up was to COVER UP that we DID know. And didn't think he was a real threat. Oliver Stone's JFK is as fake as possible BUT could be considered simply profoundly biased given the cover up. Same thing has happened all over again with 9/11.

For our purposes here, fake and bias should be considered synonymous.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
You're being extreme for the sake of making a point. We're talking so called 'fake' news. I hadn't even heard of this pizza joint so, I'm not even going to consider that because some obscure posting seen by only 500,000 people or so is not relevant when we're talking well over 100 million voters and their behavior.

In terms of relevant issues, it is 'fake' news to claim Bush lied about WMD. And it is also true. It is also biased. It is fake news to claim Obama isn't a US citizen. It is also true and it is also biased.

It the purest of terms, Bush did lie. Others would call it messaging the information. Clearly, when some report writer is all but told the boss wants the thing to read a certain way that is both lying and bias. Both fake and true. It is true that, in some contexts, the birth certificate wasn't clear cut. It's a flat out lie to blame then genesis of the issue on Trump. That said, in a certain context, it is true. It is certainly biased.


It is fake news to report that the administration says a spontaneous riot sparked by some video online somewhere, seen by handfuls of people, is responsible for the Benghazi battle. It is also true and it is also biased. Any reporter worth a damn, as well as their editors, knew, at the time, that story was bull ####. However, when it comes from the WH and they can probably find someone somewhere who can produce a FB posting about how 'angry' they were over the video, you report what the WH says. Then, your reporting engages in bias as to how it COULD be true. That said, it is every bit as much fake news as it is to say Bush is a reptilian alien. The media has been alluding to Trump being Hitler for months. This is fake news, profoundly, clearly. However, there are SOME traits that are similar and, thus, COULD be sorta Hitlerian. As for Bush, if you buy that we are all, at core, star dust, and we are, Bush has alien characteristics, as do we all. If you're arguing he has all these super powers to make 9/11 an inside job, made the weather bad in NOLA, it's all of a kind.

Fake news, for our purposes here, has to be close enough to sell suckers. That happens ALL the time in biased reporting. Two sides of the same coin. It is simply crazy to think Bill Clinton had something to do with the Mena airport and CIA drug running in Arkansas in the 80's but, over time, it looks like he was, at the very least, aware of it. It seems crazy to argue Bush 41 jumped on an SR71 as Reagan's veep and met with Iranian functionaries to get them to keep the hostages until Reagan took office but, really, is that totally our of the realm of possibilities? No. There is SOME evidence to suggest it. Same with Vince Foster. Same with the Obama gay sex stories, same with the Skull and Crossbones stuff at Yale, same with a lot of stories that, at one point or other, either were called fake or ended up being so. I heard that Muslim cabbies were told to stay away from the towers that morning, before the attacks. I also heard some Jews were told the same thing. I heard bombs were found in the Lincoln tunnel. Hell, lots of people STILL can't accept that Lee Harvey Oswald was just a kook that FBI and CIA knew about, considered harmless and then killed the President of the United States of America and that all of the cover up was to COVER UP that we DID know. And didn't think he was a real threat. Oliver Stone's JFK is as fake as possible BUT could be considered simply profoundly biased given the cover up. Same thing has happened all over again with 9/11.

For our purposes here, fake and bias should be considered synonymous.

But, there's no evidence that Obama is not a US citizen, and there are documents that say he is. It is not "true" to say he is not, it is true to say "there are people who doubt the authenticity of the documentation", but not to say, "he was born in Kenya". It is biased to say that he may not be a citizen, it is fake news to say he definitely is not a citizen.

It is not true that there was a spontaneous riot sparked by a video. It is fake news to say that's what happened. It's bias to say "some have questioned the authenticity of the administration's position of the video-instigated riot", it is fake news to say "a video caused the attack on the embassy".

As for the Hitler references, I agree that Hitler was seen drinking water, and so has virtually every politician, and therefore there are comparisons that can be made between Hitler and virtually every politician. Using the comparison is bias, saying any politician today (Democrat Robert Byrd is dead, right?) is a white supremacist is fake news.

I accept biased news. Chris Matthews has said, point blank, that he's a liberal. I know what I'm getting with him. When Sean Hannity says Hillary kicks puppies for stress relief, I know he's a biased "reporter". When Jake Tapper says it, my ears perk up because Jake is one of the very few who has been biased against both sides (at points) and generally finds a "truth" out there to report.

I guess I'm kind of half-assed agreeing with you, while still disagreeing to a degree. When a biased "journalist" tells me something demonstrably false, that's bias. When the non-op-ed pages of a newspaper tell me something demonstrably false, that's fake news. It's a question of knowing if you're getting the biased commentator or the "hard news" people. So few are "hard (honest) news" that it's almost impossible to know.
 
Top