Whenever I read about fake-news it is generally associated with the alt-right but people seem to forget that the established news are equally as guilty. I recall losing a lot of faith in the NYT when I read the Amazon expose and felt it read more like a vendetta piece/sensational than truthful objective journalism.
* lie: ABC did XYZ
* weasel: ABC *caught up in* XYZ affair.
* weasel: Many people believe ABC did XYZ.
* weasel: Sources familiar with XYZ *are hinting at* ABC's involvement.
* weasel: ABC denies XYZ scandal.
* weasel: source at the scene of XYZ may have seen ABC.
* weasel: ABC's silence about XYZ hints possible involvement.
* weasel: ABC *breaks his/her silence* about XYZ. (my all-time favorite)
* weasel: ABC *was investigated for* XYZ involvement.
* weasel: ABC explains his involvement in XYZ. { but it wasn't XYZ, it was an XYZ-*like* event from 3-decades ago }.I don't know any of the people involved, and I don't remember this. But reading the first few paragraphs have me siding with Glenn. Without taking into account the actual contents of the website, the domain name is more an accusation and assertion than 'satirical comedy'. If this were to happen to me I'd be trying everything I could to get it removed too.
Well, that might explain why you side with Glenn, since he's guilty of tactics like this himself. Which is exactly why the website was set up.
On the other hand...
MSNBC running a fake news story to discredit Wikileaks. [1]
The Washington Post runs a fake news expose on Russian propaganda efforts to spread fake news for the 2016 election. [2] It has since retracted its claims, so I guess there's that.
[1] https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/a-clinton-fan-manufactur...
[2] https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgrace...
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002051.h...
discusses this article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4361563.stm
This is literally email spam. The whole point of the article is a lie designed to sell a ridiculously dumb product which absolutely does not work as described. This is arguably worse than fake news. Because it's spam!
Note: I'd appreciate a law that penalizes this kind of lying. I admit there is potential for abuse, and that we'd need a good legal standard for getting something obviously wrong as opposed to just getting something wrong. But this has a massive social cost, and I think it's not unreasonable to balance out those massive social costs.
Here's an idea: many news outlets sell access to their news. I should be able to sue them if they give me something that is not news. I also think there is an implied warranty for news sites, and so you should be able to sue even if you aren't paying. That's a legal theory that would work okay, probably.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_-lzI8I0_0
With this BBC story to go with it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/9414812.stm
Now, to summarize.
1. BBC claims there there are masses of people waving pre-Gaddafi flag in the middle of Tripoli, a red, green, and black tri-color.
2. BBC shows footage of people in India waving the Indian flag, a white, green, and gold tri-color. With a 'Live from Tripoli' caption on it. With the talking heads nodding their heads, and saying 'Yep, sure are a lot of Libyans protesting Gaddafi there.'
3. Coming soon - the debate in the House of Commons about how we need to bomb Gaddafi.
How on Earth is this not fake news? What kind of collapse of process and journalistic integrity has to take place, in order to allow that sequence of events to happen? If they let such an obviously verifiable lie slip through, how often do they air unverifiable ones?
http://wenhousecrafts.com/2008/mar/westernmedia.htm
The insane part is, when challenged by the Chinese-run media about the lies, the western news outlets complained that, well, China doesn't let us see what's happening in Tibet, so really it's your fault.
Let that sink in: they knew accurate pictures were impossible, so they chose to lie instead. That sounds like...
fake news.
That's not bias, that's printing something false because it tells a story you like.
If CNN, the NYT, the Washington Post all uncritically parrot this, does that make them in on the lie, or no better then a tabloid?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_involvement_in_Contra_coca...
Or, alternatively, half of the things on this list?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio...
People have different standards for evidence and coping mechanisms for uncomfortable truths.
This article is pointless but it's not lying.
"The gum works by slowly releasing compounds contained in an extract from a plant called Pueraria mirifica."
That's the whole paragraph. If you can explain how that's not the BBC lying, please, enlighten me.
That's all beside the point. The story isn't about the claims being made, the story is "chewing gum can 'enhance breasts'". They never indicate the claims could possibly be false (even in the section labeled skepticism, which for some reason you believe contains skepticism), so saying, since most of the language is in quotes or using sources, it's somehow _super real news_ is somewhat astonishing.
Not having a counterpoint is lazy journalism, but it's not lying to go "X claims Y". And this article does have a counterpoint. "has not been extensively studied and such products may be simply another food gimmick"
The gum does what it does by releasing those compounds. "works by" means that the gum's mechanism is releasing those. This in itself is not promising any particular outcome.
I can show you a "skin rejuvenator" and then tell you that "It does nothing. It works by blinking lights at you." and I would not be contradicting myself. "works by" is only stating mechanism, not result.
Nowhere in that article does the BBC claim a result.
That's very hard to define and the line between a fake story and a heavily agendaed opinion piece is blurred but it reads to me as the kind of lines the people who make the rules would use.
After all, one man's news is another man's fake news: the onion is absolutely fake but we all like it because we're in on the joke. But the Chinese have reported on the onion before[0] and Iran[1]
So my point is that this is obviously a very delicate ground but I see this being abused by the incumbent media
[0]http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/27/world/asia/north-korea-chi...
[1]http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/28/world/iran-news-agency-dup...
I'm yet to see a definition of "fake news" that applies to Breitbart but doesn't apply to the New York Times without referring to ideology.
I'm also sort of curious how so many left-leaning people seem to be so excited to hand this power of labeling "fake news" and censoring it to governments or other powerful entities as we're what in is at least plausibly a large-scale swing to populist right-wing power gains in Western civilization. Maybe that will turn out not to be the case, but it's certainly a valid interpretation of the events of the last couple of years. Are you all sure this is the best time to be talking about powers to muzzle news sources? We're most likely minutes away from the Electoral College electing Trump as I write this, and while Merkel may still be in power in Germany it's not exactly like the winds are blowing her way and she's had to play some very defensive political games lately. Who's actually going to end up with the power to define "fake news"?
My point is basically: No, some things are worse than other things.
Anyway, there may be bad actors advocating for fake news laws, but that doesn't change the fact that fake news is a harmful thing that needs to be dealt with somehow. I agree with a lot of what you say, but I'm also not in favor of throwing my hands up and saying, "Oh well, we're just screwed."
I too find it strange the left is pushing this fake news narrative, so hard right as Trump is taking power.
Tabloids are held accountable through the justice system and can be sued by victims of defamation or hate speech.
The issue at hand is that in contrast to traditional publishing houses, companies operating social media platforms aren't liable for the stories they distribute while to some degree still financially benefitting from the controversy.
The laws under discussion are aimed at creating an incentive to react to the complaints of victims in a timely fashion.
And this law just applies the laws that apply to the tabloids also to the web.
This probably would require the mentioned parties to sue, though - so no luck if it is a fake news story portraying someone in a positive light.
Those who now believe there is an equivalence between far-right propaganda (some of it originating form a hostile power) and the NYT, are a lost cause. It is identical to equating the bulk of the scientific community to a few climate change deniers. You obfuscate your own view of reality.
You will find that individuals emerging from behind the iron curtain were more stunned by the accuracy of information and the absence of a surreal reality in the west than by anything else.
As an aside, it's interesting the stunning amount of interest in guaranteeing the wide circulation of utterly false propaganda on a site that instantly mob censors any discussion of Russian hacking. A site called Hacker News (apparently ironically).
This fake news narrative seems far more comfortable in a dictatorship then a free country.
The new yorks times was clearly pushing an agenda this election which is what ruined its reputation and made it on par with various propaganda sites. A poor decision which has ruined its credibilty.
And in fact every competent news source including the Atlantic, WaPo, CNN, the Guardian, Forbes, the BBC, NHK and the Economist reported the same things.
Free societies decry false propaganda and always have. Authoritarians decry accurate information as equivalent and any information contrary to their goals.
But unfortunately there is no force on earth to dissuade the indoctrinated that there is no world wide conspiracy out to get them. That their facebook feed and extremest websites have no connection to reality. Particularly if they have found a charismatic leader to focus on who has no interest in accuracy.
>...what ruined its reputation and made it on par with various propaganda sites...
The is false. Generally, a thing does not become true simply because someone tweets it.
The google trend analysis shows how artificial the fake news narrative is.
As for the new york times, they published a plea for subscribers, large losses, and even down sized their real estate. That is all very strange for a once trusted institution, outside of our hackernews bubble there is real sense the times is now just propaganda.
>...outside of our hackernews bubble there is real sense the times is now just propaganda...
And that is exactly backwards, unless you're living in a especially un-innovative and low achievement area of the country. If so suggest you'll have more success moving to a city with bright people than pinning your financial hopes on a demagogue.
Im in college in philly. and hear moaning about the mainstream media from people on both sides of the political spectrum. Credibilty is shot for my generation. Times are changing.