How big a problem is this really? I’m beginning to get the impression it’s yuge.
I’m not talking about Trump’s version. Rather all of this internet stuff.
The networks generally get it right most of the time if you ignore the “experts” and focus on actual news programs. But it seems like there’s less and less actual news.
Anybody who gets their news from facebook is too stupid to vote
I think the problem is that News Organizations from either side are jumping on stories to quickly and not checking them.
Then they are creating the “Fake news” call because even if they correct it 2 - 3 hours later the damage was already done and people believe the first incorrect stories.
Both sides want to get anything damaging against the political opposition ASAP.
First story is usually what most people read and believe and don’t generally see the correction to the stories.
But misleading stories and corrections don’t happen that often. Of the thousands of stories from actual news networks there are maybe 10 corrections.
At least there are corrections, that shows some integrity. We are human and can make mistakes.
I wish the WH was more forthcoming with corrections, seems like they hold themselves to a much lower standard than our press
I think it’s more common than that, but you have a point.
I wonder if the AP is part of the problem?
Fake news seems to have different levels. Are you talking like anti science stuff? QAnon/Pizzagate? Propaganda? Paid stories? Hidden media ownership? Bad/weak sources? Duped journos? Hit pieces?
It proliferates. The question is whether it is objective or subjective
What would you define as a problem? The fact of the matter remains, regardless of what a person hears or reads its up to them to decide what is fact and true. Those who are ardent watchers of CNN, NBC, etc probably feel it is accurate and truthful, those that watch Fox News and listen to Rush, Sean et all probably feel the same.
Lets say hypothetically that “fake news” is a problem, then what?
It’s entertainment news.
The genesis of the term was con artists literally just making up news stories to go viral and collect ad revenue. Fake stories on hoax sites about the pope endorsing trump and Hilary selling weapons to ISIS were shared millions of times on Facebook - and most certainly had an effect on the election.
Trump, as he very effectively does, turned the term on its ear and pointed it backwards and now we use it for news we don’t like or incorrect reports. Like the wire tap story today - which I do not think fall under the banner of “fake news” at all. Our news sources may be biased, but that is a separate conversation.
I think it’s confirmation bias news.
I dislike the term. And I dislike it is being bandied about as a problem the government has to do something about. I don’t want the government within a thousand miles of somehow determining what is real news and what is fake news. That’s for me to decide, not them. There have always been less than reputable stories by outlets looking to make a buck on the gullible with fake sensational “news” stories, somehow it wasn’t much of a problem until Hillary lost.
Yeah yeah, but Russia!! Election!! Anyone see the left complain when various countries were warning the first thing Trump would do when elected was start rounding up 11 million illegals and mass deport them? Yeah, me either. Somehow that doesn’t constitute interfering in our elections or change any votes.
That too yes
Yes.
I think the issue with so-called fake news are the mainstream news entertainers and their biased opinions. That’s the root. They have a tendency put out a lot of opinions and frame narratives based on their own political ideology. I would say about 1/4 to 1/2 is based on actual facts. They fail to analyze both sides of the argument and they also fail to take their queues from actual journalists who research and report the news, nope, they throw something out there to see if it will stick and gain traction. The top tier are folks like Limbaugh, our host, Rachel Maddow, etc. this filters down to all the wannabees on local and regional talk radio. They pick it up, add their own opinions to further taint the information which will further make things more inaccurate with the final result being intentionally misinforming the masses to think a certain way. This is dangerous because it has the strong possibility to eliminate free thought and make the masses lazy in regards to researching the truth. These types of things can/has sway(ed) elections and more importantly have a negative impact as it relates to public policy.
How do we eliminate fake news? Turn off the opinionated news entertainers. Get your source from actual journalist, check behind them for accuracy, get the proper context, research both sides of the argument and finally make your OWN decision.
Good post. I agree about Centgov getting involved.
Good post. I agree.
Love the avatar. Looks like a chiba bus.
With this president and Sanders out there lying to the public every day it normalizes fake news. And they are not some random Internet people. So start there.
Walter Cronkite. February 27th, 1968. CBS News.
I guess you are referring to the unwinnable Vietnam war in your cryptic incrementalist approach to debate?
Even if you don’t think that his statement that day was true he didn’t go on TV and lie to the public every day like this group does.
You figured it out, so it wasn’t so cryptic.
Even if I “think” it wasn’t true? 
You must be joking.
I’m not interested.
