The sudden obsession with "fake news" started last November after the election. Why then?
The big media also seems very discontent that Trump uses social media to communicate his news with people directly, bypassing the middlemen.
The big media also seems very discontent that Trump uses social media to communicate his news with people directly, bypassing the middlemen.
Incidentally, here's an interesting podcast episode where they track down and interview a fake news producer. I don't recall them getting into specific timelines or an in-depth analysis of the trend, unfortunately:
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/12/02/504155809/episo...
My first thought was, "Wonder what the narrative would be on this one. I smell a bull market for scapegoats right about now."
And, hey! Whaddya know, a week or so afterwards and we have this fake news fetish.
That's not what I saw. There was plenty of coverage before that of the tidal wave of false information. In fact, fact-checking Trump's statements was a major issue and frequently reported.
https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%2012-m&q=fa...
Thats an anecdote, and we've had things like batboy and fake news about hillary clinton since the 90s.
Also the huge spike on google trends right after the election is undoubtedly important and meaningful.
Because Trump won, and people saw this as a failing of the news to inform.
And ignoring for a second the assumption that a better informed populus would have naturally voted Clinton...
The finger was easier to point at hack "news" blogs than admit the organizations that are supposed to make up the respectable press outlets were all complicit in failing to focus on topics of good governance (candidates' positions, issues and suitability for office) instead preferred to focus on the horse race and reality show-esque manufactured drama.
Exactly. There are a bunch of people who knew all about Trump's lies, distortions of reality, character flaws, and so on, and voted for him anyway. Why is that?
Hillary was a deeply flawed candidate. First, she was the establishment candidate. This wasn't a good election to be wearing that mantle. Next, she gave off the vibe that she felt she was entitled to the presidency. There were more than two decades of scandals (never mind how much actual fire there was; after two decades of smoke surrounding her, people were sick of it). Her email servers were a very bad look; it gave the impression that she wanted to hide stuff so it wouldn't come back to haunt her during her presidential run, and it also gave the impression that she thought rules were for other people. The allegations of pay for play with the Clinton Foundation was a continuation of the corruption allegations, but it was very fresh. And for the working class, their financial position mostly got worse under Obama, and Clinton was viewed as a continuation of that.
But sure, blame people voting for Trump on fake news.
(For the record, I'm a conservative who could not in good conscience vote either for Trump or Hillary, but who was cheering for Hillary on election night because I viewed Trump as more dangerous.)
For what it's worth, I think it's a massively erroneous assumption. But it's also one I'm not particularly interested in discussing in the context of this thread.
A mistake this big is a wake-up call.
That is not true at all. Fox covered it heavily, as far as I know; the New York Times and Washington Post both seemed to publish a new articles on the topic daily; CNN seemed to cover it heavily. Who didn't cover that story?
Also the huffington post, cnn, msnbc, wapo, and nytimes did not cover it objectively. I hear tons of complaints from Bernie Supporters still to this day on campus.
I find this hard to believe. Can you back up any of these claims?
“Also interesting is, remember, it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents. It’s different for the media. So everything you learn about this, you’re learning from us.”
This has been interpreted by some as you can't view or read them, as you likely need to download them, at least in your browser, to be able to view them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
glenn greenwalds twitter has more examples.
EDIT: Searching around, all I see are similar sources: Infowars, Breitbart, etc. Maybe he said it (and who knows what the context was), but I don't think see any evidence it was more than a gaff. Certainly I never heard it from them or anyone else.
Techdirt https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161019/07004935835/cnn-t...
washington examiner http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cnn-anchor-warns-illegal-f...
a link to him saying it. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jww8pOdPZpM
observer articles explain rigging and cnn assistance https://www.google.com/amp/observer.com/2016/07/latest-gucci...
https://www.google.com/amp/observer.com/2016/11/mainstream-m...
fox news
https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/...
I'm not sure what the Observer article has to do with the issue at hand?
If you ignore "conservative media", you may be just trapped in your filter bubble.
Its clear this is not a good faith discussion.
I voted for Bernie with many other college kids, and we abstained from voting in the presidential when fox news gave us more objective coverage at the dnc protests. It was an truely awakening experience for many of us. just my two cents.
My personal opinion? Doubling down on why they lost. Much easier to point fingers. </opinion>
In all seriousness though, the ability to manipulate media is nothing new. What about "fake comments", or vote spamming?