Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member vivify
    rain
    24 Dec '16 15:51
    There's a misunderstanding with fake news sources that's muddling up the discussions about them.

    A fake news source would be the Denver Guardian, a publication which doesn't actually exist. They recently circulated fake news on Facebook about an FBI agent investigating Clinton whose house burned down (this was false). This was then spread by conservatives (like Whodey did on this site). That was a fake news site.

    Then, there are conspiracy sites (also popular with conservatives) like InfoWars. They made news most recently for it's role in "pizzagate", which lead to an armed gunman invading a pizza shop allegedly sex-trafficking children (and, of course, finding nothing). The difference between conspiracy sites and fake news sites, is that conspiracy sites actually believe the fake news, and genuinely promote it real.

    This leads us to propagandists. These include sources like Breitbart (or very often, Fox News). Propagandists use real news in misleading ways, or spin current events in a way that fits their narrative. One example is when Fox News frequently spun the narrative of "death panels" resulting from Obamacare. Breitbart not only defended Trump's "Mexican rapist" comment, but also sided with Trump when one of his campaign managers allegedly assaulted a Breitbart reporter. It's worth noting that Breitbart's Executive Chairman, Steve Bannon, was hired to lead his campaign (which obviously makes their Trump coverage biased).

    So while sites like the enver Guardian are clearly fake news, conspiracy and propaganda sources aren't always "fake news". However, they may use fake news stories at times, due to lack of fact-checking.

    This means that complaints from conservatives who use these sources are partially correct: Infowars isn't a fake news site; it's a news site with false information. Breitbart isn't actually fake news: it's propaganda.

    So perhaps "fake news" doesn't properly fit a site like InfoWars; perhpaps "false news" best describes these sources.
  2. Standard member checkbaiter
    By God's Grace
    24 Dec '16 16:27
    Originally posted by vivify
    There's a misunderstanding with fake news sources that's muddling up the discussions about them.

    A fake news source would be the Denver Guardian, a publication which doesn't actually exist. They recently circulated fake news on Facebook about an FBI agent investigating Clinton whose house burned down (this was false). This was then spread by conservati ...[text shortened]... " doesn't properly fit a site like InfoWars; perhpaps "false news" best describes these sources.
    I'm glad you cleared that right up. I get it now. Pmsnbc, CNN. ABC, etc., are the "real " news... got it.
    I finally know the truth...
  3. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    24 Dec '16 16:46
    Originally posted by vivify
    There's a misunderstanding with fake news sources that's muddling up the discussions about them.

    A fake news source would be the Denver Guardian, a publication which doesn't actually exist. They recently circulated fake news on Facebook about an FBI agent investigating Clinton whose house burned down (this was false). This was then spread by conservati ...[text shortened]... " doesn't properly fit a site like InfoWars; perhpaps "false news" best describes these sources.
    Very well written.
    And I think your distinction between fake and false is well worth taking note of!
  4. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    24 Dec '16 17:36
    Originally posted by vivify
    There's a misunderstanding with fake news sources that's muddling up the discussions about them.

    A fake news source would be the Denver Guardian, a publication which doesn't actually exist. They recently circulated fake news on Facebook about an FBI agent investigating Clinton whose house burned down (this was false). This was then spread by conservati ...[text shortened]... " doesn't properly fit a site like InfoWars; perhpaps "false news" best describes these sources.
    "Fake news" is ANYTHING from ANY SOURCE--- legitimate or otherwise--- which is manufactured, i.e., not based on any factual support and otherwise disconnected from reality, for the express and deliberate purpose of swaying public opinion toward the desired conclusion(s) of the person or group disseminating the same.

    While there are smaller "bit" players in the game, but the main players are those sources which make up the MSM here in the US: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox.

    Unfortunately, there aren't any sources which have proved their 100% reliability, so the audience is reduced to detecting/investigating the veracity of reports on their own, most times comparing and contrasting the source's videos/information with reality which can be confirmed independently.

    In most cases of "fake news," the MSM is 'only' guilty of failing to execute their main function: investigation of the reports from authorities, even while they turn around and "report" the stories as facts.

    It used to be called propaganda, but those in power have come to realize the necessity of muddying the waters even further than the seeds of doubt planted by the CIA in the 60's with the introduction of the "conspiracy theory syndrome," thus the need to usher in "fake news," with the intention of bolstering the public's trust in MSM as the only reliable source for truth about news, and away from critical thinking about ALL sources.
  5. 24 Dec '16 17:54
    Originally posted by vivify
    There's a misunderstanding with fake news sources that's muddling up the discussions about them.

    A fake news source would be the Denver Guardian, a publication which doesn't actually exist. They recently circulated fake news on Facebook about an FBI agent investigating Clinton whose house burned down (this was false). This was then spread by conservati ...[text shortened]... " doesn't properly fit a site like InfoWars; perhpaps "false news" best describes these sources.
    The "propagandists" definition is misleading, imho. Differentiating between opinion pieces and actual news reporting leads to the confusion here. The NY Times opinion section represents the same kind of "propaganda" as you have alluded to here, but it's an opinion section. Likewise, Fox News' talk shows are opinion, not news reporting. But their news reporting is just fine, and consistent with that of CNN.

    The Death Panels were included in an early version of the ACA, but during one of it's many revisions, they were removed (having read that version myself, and tracked the law throughout it's life-cycle). The claim was true, when it was made, and was rendered false by revision.

    You should do the right thing and include sites like The Huffington Post and Mother Jones in your listing. Both sides have their propaganda engines.
  6. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    24 Dec '16 18:22
    Originally posted by vivify
    There's a misunderstanding with fake news sources that's muddling up the discussions about them.

    A fake news source would be the Denver Guardian, a publication which doesn't actually exist. They recently circulated fake news on Facebook about an FBI agent investigating Clinton whose house burned down (this was false). This was then spread by conservati ...[text shortened]... " doesn't properly fit a site like InfoWars; perhpaps "false news" best describes these sources.
    I agree with the general drift of what you are saying, but feel I should point out that propaganda can involve blatant lies. For example, for propaganda purposes Britain circulated stories about German soldiers raping nuns in the First World War which were untrue. So there is an overlap between propaganda and fake news. Many face news sites do it for economic reasons, the purpose being to get people to visit their site and generate advertising, those that do it for political purposes would be using fake news for the purpose of generating a propaganda effect.
  7. 24 Dec '16 18:39
    Originally posted by vivify
    There's a misunderstanding with fake news sources that's muddling up the discussions about them.
    I have noticed at least one poster desperately trying to prove that the 'liberal' media have fake news by showing that they made mistakes. Again, mistakes are not 'fake news'. Fake news is deliberately fabricated news.
  8. 24 Dec '16 18:44 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    I agree with the general drift of what you are saying, but feel I should point out that propaganda can involve blatant lies.
    What I dislike, but technically isn't fake news is:
    1. Picking up ridiculously false stories (and reporting them as false) for the sole purpose of headline grabbing. So some random UFO believer says something silly and half the internet reports on it because it allows them to put UFO in the title which pushes up views.
    2. The very significant bias of 'news' towards what they think will sell rather than accurate coverage.

    In general 'the news' is not the best way to learn about the world or current affairs and most certainly should not be the only source of such information.
  9. Standard member vivify
    rain
    24 Dec '16 19:33
    Originally posted by blaze8492
    "The Death Panels were included in an early version of the ACA
    End of life counseling = fact

    Death Panels = propaganda
  10. Standard member vivify
    rain
    24 Dec '16 19:35 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I have noticed at least one poster desperately trying to prove that the 'liberal' media have fake news by showing that they made mistakes. Again, mistakes are not 'fake news'. Fake news is deliberately fabricated news.
    You're right. I should've included that in the OP. I thought this may have been implied in my post, But it helps to explicitly state it.
  11. 24 Dec '16 21:06
    Originally posted by vivify
    End of life counseling = fact

    Death Panels = propaganda
    I don't have the energy to find that version of the document and quote the relevant passage for you. But it was not end of life counseling, it involved a particular body making evaluations on treatment options.
  12. Standard member vivify
    rain
    24 Dec '16 21:25 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by blaze8492
    I don't have the energy to find that version of the document and quote the relevant passage for you. But it was not end of life counseling, it involved a particular body making evaluations on treatment options.
    Nor will you ever "have the energy" to find it, because it's just propoganda.
  13. 24 Dec '16 21:51
    Originally posted by vivify
    Not will you ever "have the energy" to find it, because it's just propoganda.
    *rolls eyes*. You keep telling yourself that.
  14. Standard member vivify
    rain
    24 Dec '16 22:09
    Originally posted by blaze8492
    *rolls eyes*. You keep telling yourself that.
    Yet, conveniently, you're too tired show a shred of evidence to support your assertion. You have a life full of fatigue ahead of you, buddy.
  15. Standard member HandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    25 Dec '16 02:04
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    While there are smaller "bit" players in the game, but the main players are those sources which make up the MSM here in the US: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox.
    Among others, you left out the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Associated Press.