Or can attack the source.
I’m saying that it cuts both ways. A false vid/aud could be believed or a true vid could be disbelieved.
I think this has to be established. It seems to me that the term “fake news” should probably be reserved for stuff that’s deliberately or even ignorantly made-up, even if it’s unknowingly passed around, disseminated. Otherwise, we’re just having the standard discussion about bias, reputable sourcing, “objectivity,” etc. It makes the most sense to start there, and work back to things like bias, spin, slant, etc.
How do you distinguish between deliberate and ignorance?
Reporters are pretty stupid as a group.
Fake news might just be a temporary problem since memories will get longer as the information age goes on.
I remember my parents were really into apocalyptic sermons and books, but once they had access to the internet and archives of old material online, they couldn’t be enticed to buy yet another series of recycled material anymore. Eventually the target audiences of fake news will pass a threshold of knowledge that makes misleading material less effective.
I don’t think reporters are any more “stupid as a group” than any other given profession. That generalization is, well, stupid.
How do you distinguish between deliberate and ignorance?
I just mean the distinction between people who knowingly make ■■■■ up and the people who may be careless, oblivious, casual, or unrigorous in spreading it.
For example, a couple of days before the 2016 election, The Denver Guardian ran a story about the murder-suicide involving the FBI agent suspected in HIllary’s email leaks. Okay. So there’s no such thing as the The Denver Guardian newspaper, all the places and names in the story were fictional, the photos were stock, etc. That’s deliberate. Someone made it up. There are countless examples of this.
Now, a person reading or sharing that on FB, retweeting it, sending it out as a FWD:FWD:FWD email (Thanks, dad!) may simply be careless, credulous, ignorant, etc. They didn’t create the lie; they’re just enabling it. Anecdote: In the early fall before the 2016 election, I had a remarkable conversation at a playground with a parent: intelligent, articulate, thoughtful. This person was also totally invested in the Pizzagate story and sharing with me (and let’s keep in mind that someone actually drive hundreds of miles to shoot up the Comet Pizza restaurant because of this story). He didn’t invent the story, but he’s disseminating it because it clearly captured his imagination.
The lines can get blurry: Years ago now, some person called into Mark Levin’s show. He claimed to be a brain surgeon and said that the ACA had a specific, secret provision that made anyone over the age of 70 ineligible for neurosurgery. He said he’d been at some secret meeting where this was decided and discussed. It was ridiculous–and (I imagine) frightening for Levin’s listeners. It was picked up the CNS and LifeNews and some other outlets. I argued about it here; my dad sent me the FWD:FWDs. Later; the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (and other organizations) ended up having to release a statement to rebut this claim. Okay. Did that caller just make it up? Probably. Who knows? But it was spread by others–and very effectively.
To return to my original point: it’s probably most helpful to reserve the term “fake news” for the stuff that’s deliberately made up. It will usually provide a baseline for consensus and agreement: we can find fake news stories on the left and right, and (if we’re sane and reasonable) agree about their status as such. Then, we can move into the murkier, trickier things like spin and bias, credibility and journalistic errors, etc.
(Okay, gotta stop the Friday procrastinatin’) 
Oh yes they are.
I just mean the distinction between people who knowingly make ■■■■ up and the people who may be careless, oblivious, casual, or unrigorous in spreading it.
That’s what I mean too.
All the so-called military experts they all had on during the GWOT is a better example.
“Oh he’s a retired Colonel! He must know all about counter-insurgency.” What a crock of cow pies.
You haven’t even been showing the Crap NASA puts out that they say is real.
Many Video’s have shown where NASA and the International Space Station have shown that they use a Green Screen and VR Traking Systems to add things in for the people to pretend to hold.
Not sure why they do the faking of it but a lot is obvious.
You see people fade out into walls or objects and hands disappear.
Hell one Interview you actually saw the entire area behind the people over played with a news feed or something so it was easy to tell it was green screened.
I see, you are saying we could have actual video of a politician caught in the act, and he or she could just claim it’s one of those manipulated videos.
The question is, can experts in digital video editing, be able to see signs of a manipulated video?
We have seen new orgs post a photo, and the experts identify it as manipulated, and discredit it. The one with extra smoke coming from a mid eastern city after it was bombed, comes to mind.
Good point. And then we are stuck with trying to figure out which “experts” to believe. Because you know there will be at least 2 experts contradicting each other. We already do this actually.
Are you referring to something like this? 
I think that’s problem, too, but I think it just sort of funnels us into the old, “You know what I hate about the media?” discussion.
Just remember: real investigative reporting is expensive and time-consuming; the results may or may not tickle the lizard brains of readers, viewers, or listeners, or give them an immediate rush.
In contrast, having people sit around and shoot the breeze on TV is cheap and profitable.
We should get a bunch of laws. Force some people to put a watermark or something when a video has been altered. Get Centgov involved.
This is where we will need ours news media to have honesty and integrity. Can we get there, after the past few years of partisanship and so many agenda driven media outlets?
I have no doubt you are correct.
And then there is the whole Righteous Mind.
Confirmation bias sells.
Tech problems are usually solved by technology, so perhaps someone will invent a tamper proof video camera that makes it impossible to mess with what it captures without leaving behind evidence. Certified footage.
And pass some laws. Require some licensing.
There is no last few years about it, the media has always been partisan and agenda driven, you just happen to hate some agendas worse than others.
Uh, hell no, government has no more business deciding who is a journalist than it does deciding what is real and what is fake news.
