Hacker News Reader

The article contains several real examples of fake news influencing foreign elections. When you live in a country where your the only data you can afford to access is Facebook and partner's "free" version of the Internet on your mobile device, the possibility of fake news influencing the election is increased dramatically.

You conveniently fail to mention that every example in the article is real, factual, and documented. Do you have any specific examples mentioned in the article that are demonstrably false?

Without any specific falsehoods, you're simply indulging in an ad hominem attack on the source as being biased in and of itself based on what you perceive to be their motives.

> The article contains several real examples of fake news influencing foreign elections.

It has exactly one example that supports its thesis. That example involved several other factors and the end result of the election was not affected. Here is some coverage from the time it was happening:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2014/0529/Indone...

The rest of the NYT article is a hodgepodge of unsubstantiated statements, hand-picked opinions, pictures and social media quotes. Or do you seriously consider a badly Photoshopped picture of someone's T-Shirt to be a "fact" that illustrates the influence of Facebook on world elections?

> Without any specific falsehoods

You seem to have missed the part where I specifically said that high-grade propaganda does not rely on outright lies.

...

Meanwhile, the title of the article in question was changed from "Fake News on Facebook? In Foreign Elections, That’s Not New" to "Fake News in U.S. Election? Elsewhere, That’s Nothing New". This serves to further illustrate my point about framing.

I understand the frustration of journalists from news organisations completely. They are held to a high standard, having to fact check every detail and get hell for being wrong (which naturally occurs). Along come people who simply invent facts, and nobody seems to care. And: putting everything into the perspective of a big media conspiracy doesn't help the public discourse at all.

Get hell for being wrong?

All the same journalists who pushed for the Iraq war on false intelligence are still there at their jobs doing the same crap. There are zero consequences when "mainstream" journalists push fake news.

This deserves to be top comment. Most accurate insight in the "fake news" debate. Thank you.

Where "accurate" == "fits my narrative"...

Thanks for reaffirming this entire concept.

That's cheap. What's your counter to the GP's point?

> Ask yourself the following questions. Is this article covering some specific recent event?

The piece was written yesterday in response to meetings in Berlin between Obama, Merkel and others. Breitbart reported on it too, obviously with a very different spin [1].

> If you don't believe in meta-narratives, just look below the text to "Related Coverage" box on the page:

That an article is lumped together with other articles covering the same topic (same tags) is of surprise to no one who has ever worked with publishing or SEO.

> This is what high-grade propaganda looks like. It doesn't use outright lies, but rather relies on reframing, anchoring, deliberate name-dropping and rote repetition to establish certain associations and emotional responses. I find it infinitely more sinister than some outrageous bullshit appearing on Facebook.

> And it's disconcerting to see just how hard some outlets try to (morally if not otherwise) discredit the outcome of the elections right now. NYT is actually not the worst in this regard. Just open the home pages of Washington Post or The Atlantic. Political FUD stacked on top of more political FUD. Maybe I have a memory lapse, but I've never seen anything quite like it.

Well, by GPs own logic, that post is anchoring. It's just framed as generally as possible to appeal to people in the same way as horoscopes.

[1] http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/17/o...

> The piece was written yesterday in response to meetings in Berlin between Obama, Merkel and others.

The meetings were mentioned twice. Most of the article has nothing to do with them.

> That an article is lumped together with other articles covering the same topic (same tags) is of surprise

Yeah, I'm sure it's pretty normal for NYT to publish articles bashing social media on bi-daily basis. I just happened to miss all of those before the election.