'Fake news' claims

KyussB

Partly don't know why I'm bothering to point this out, as it usually turns into a frustrating waste of time but:
On Politics here it is said by a mod that "Characterising legit news outlets as fake news is a form of trolling.".

This is a massive problem, because 'legit' news outlets are known to put out 'fake news' on a regular basis.

The term 'fake news' itself is a problem, because it pretty much just means 'propaganda/falsehoods' - except as a term people tend to just use it against views which don't fit with mainstream narratives, or which otherwise don't align with their own personal world views - that term should never play a part in moderating the site.

Even just the distinction between 'legit' and non-legit news sources, is extremely airy and open to interpretation - usually it's just defined as mainstream news sources - regardless of whether they put out propaganda/falsehoods regularly.

A great historical example of 'fake news' i.e. propaganda, universally spread by 'legit' news outlets, was the Iraq WMD dossier - the thread that mod note is in, heavily discusses the recent Mueller dossier - which is generating a lot of controversy and public discussion, claiming that many 'legit' news sources were putting out 'fake news' i.e. propaganda, with respect to the issues that report discusses.

That's setting some dangerous limitations on the range of acceptable discussion on the forum - well beyond issues I've had with limitations on discussion there before.

kneemos

If all the legit news outlets are carrying the same story it's "real news".
No idea what fake news is anyway


The WMD saga was always controversial by the way,at least on any articles I read or heard.

mcmoustache

The term "fake news" came to prominence in the past few years. It was once used to describe completely fabricated stories on pages that were made to look like news sites and were designed to be spread on social media for those sweet ad-clicks. It was news that was fake, as the name would suggest in the same way that a fake rolex is not a rolex but just looks like one.

At around the same time as actual fake news being spread, a prominent conspiracy theorist with a history of failed businesses and failed marriages started using the term to describe news that was accurate but that he didn't like as well as organisations that didn't offer the levels praise that he was used to getting on FOX and infowars. This usage then spread among his supporters and people like him as a way do dismiss reality when confronted by difficult questions about it.

It's this second usage of the term that is banned here and the reason is clear enough. There are news organisations out there with varying levels of bias and accuracy. Some of those are well respected papers of record while others are aimed at people who start reading from the back and others still are simply making stuff up like that one that used to catch and kill stories for the famous conspiracy theorist I mentioned earlier. When people are using the term "fake news" to describe well respected media like the Wall St Journal or the Washington post, they aren't doing it because of a study that they read that found that these organisations were simply fabricating 40% of their reports - they are doing it because they heard the conspiracy guy doing it and thought that it was a clever rebuttal.

They know well that CNN, BBC, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, WSJ etc are far more accurate than the news that is tailored to them which promotes Seth Rich and QAnon conspiracy theories. When people use the term in here, it's not that they think that the organisations are actually fabricating stories. It's that they don't like the facts that are being reported and they think that calling them "fake news" is an actual argument. It's a complete misuse of the English language and logic itself.


On the point about the Iraq war and the dodgy dossier, I remember that the papers published the claims of the dossier. The Sun newspaper, for example went with headlines about the infamous 45 minute claim. This claim was of course bogus but that is not fake news. The dossier existed, the 45 minute claim was in there and reading past the headline would have made clear that this claim came from the dossier. It was not fabricated by The Sun. Sure, it was pro-war scare-mongering from a paper with a long history of misleading headlines but it wasn't "fake news".

And finally, if BBC, AP, Reuters, WaPo, NYT and the rest of the reputable media are to be described as "fake news", then where the hell is the "not fake news"? FOX, OAN, indymedia, RT, Breitbart, Gemma O Doherty, some guy with a social media account?

It's a stupid and dishonest term when used in that context.

mcmoustache

kneemos wrote: »

If all the legit news outlets are carrying the same story it's "real news".
No idea what fake news is anyway


The WMD saga was always controversial by the way,at least on any articles I read or heard.

I remember it well. The Times was pro war while The Independent was against it. On the other end of the educational spectrum, The Sun was for it while The Mirror was not.

kneemos

mcmoustache wrote: »

I remember it well. The Times was pro war while The Independent was against it. On the other end of the educational spectrum, The Sun was for it while The Mirror was not.

Individual papers will have bias,but the actual existence of WMD was always a matter of doubt,even more so as time went by.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

KyussB wrote: »

Partly don't know why I'm bothering to point this out, as it usually turns into a frustrating waste of time but:
On Politics here it is said by a mod that "Characterising legit news outlets as fake news is a form of trolling.".

This is a massive problem, because 'legit' news outlets are known to put out 'fake news' on a regular basis.

The term 'fake news' itself is a problem, because it pretty much just means 'propaganda/falsehoods' - except as a term people tend to just use it against views which don't fit with mainstream narratives, or which otherwise don't align with their own personal world views - that term should never play a part in moderating the site.

Even just the distinction between 'legit' and non-legit news sources, is extremely airy and open to interpretation - usually it's just defined as mainstream news sources - regardless of whether they put out propaganda/falsehoods regularly.

A great historical example of 'fake news' i.e. propaganda, universally spread by 'legit' news outlets, was the Iraq WMD dossier - the thread that mod note is in, heavily discusses the recent Mueller dossier - which is generating a lot of controversy and public discussion, claiming that many 'legit' news sources were putting out 'fake news' i.e. propaganda, with respect to the issues that report discusses.

That's setting some dangerous limitations on the range of acceptable discussion on the forum - well beyond issues I've had with limitations on discussion there before.

I’ve observed the opposite. I mostly see it used by people with more unpopular or marginal viewpoints in an attempt to cast doubt on the reports put out by established news organisations.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

mcmoustache wrote: »

The term "fake news" came to prominence in the past few years. It was once used to describe completely fabricated stories on pages that were made to look like news sites and were designed to be spread on social media for those sweet ad-clicks. It was news that was fake, as the name would suggest in the same way that a fake rolex is not a rolex but just looks like one.

At around the same time as actual fake news being spread, a prominent conspiracy theorist with a history of failed businesses and failed marriages started using the term to describe news that was accurate but that he didn't like as well as organisations that didn't offer the levels praise that he was used to getting on FOX and infowars. This usage then spread among his supporters and people like him as a way do dismiss reality when confronted by difficult questions about it.

It's this second usage of the term that is banned here and the reason is clear enough. There are news organisations out there with varying levels of bias and accuracy. Some of those are well respected papers of record while others are aimed at people who start reading from the back and others still are simply making stuff up like that one that used to catch and kill stories for the famous conspiracy theorist I mentioned earlier. When people are using the term "fake news" to describe well respected media like the Wall St Journal or the Washington post, they aren't doing it because of a study that they read that found that these organisations were simply fabricating 40% of their reports - they are doing it because they heard the conspiracy guy doing it and thought that it was a clever rebuttal.

They know well that CNN, BBC, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, WSJ etc are far more accurate than the news that is tailored to them which promotes Seth Rich and QAnon conspiracy theories. When people use the term in here, it's not that they think that the organisations are actually fabricating stories. It's that they don't like the facts that are being reported and they think that calling them "fake news" is an actual argument. It's a complete misuse of the English language and logic itself.


On the point about the Iraq war and the dodgy dossier, I remember that the papers published the claims of the dossier. The Sun newspaper, for example went with headlines about the infamous 45 minute claim. This claim was of course bogus but that is not fake news. The dossier existed, the 45 minute claim was in there and reading past the headline would have made clear that this claim came from the dossier. It was not fabricated by The Sun. Sure, it was pro-war scare-mongering from a paper with a long history of misleading headlines but it wasn't "fake news".

And finally, if BBC, AP, Reuters, WaPo, NYT and the rest of the reputable media are to be described as "fake news", then where the hell is the "not fake news"? FOX, OAN, indymedia, RT, Breitbart, Gemma O Doherty, some guy with a social media account?

It's a stupid and dishonest term when used in that context.

Could not agree more with the bolded bits. What organisation is putting out “real news” to these people?

I’m totally sick of the term, especially as half the time it’s uttered, the utterer doesn’t seem to know what they mean when they say it. They just lob the phrase like a grenade. It’s a pox on the English language and on discourse and debate ever since it took hold in the public consciousness.

KyussB

mcmoustache wrote: »

The term "fake news" came to prominence in the past few years. It was once used to describe completely fabricated stories on pages that were made to look like news sites and were designed to be spread on social media for those sweet ad-clicks. It was news that was fake, as the name would suggest in the same way that a fake rolex is not a rolex but just looks like one.

At around the same time as actual fake news being spread, a prominent conspiracy theorist with a history of failed businesses and failed marriages started using the term to describe news that was accurate but that he didn't like as well as organisations that didn't offer the levels praise that he was used to getting on FOX and infowars. This usage then spread among his supporters and people like him as a way do dismiss reality when confronted by difficult questions about it.

It's this second usage of the term that is banned here and the reason is clear enough. There are news organisations out there with varying levels of bias and accuracy. Some of those are well respected papers of record while others are aimed at people who start reading from the back and others still are simply making stuff up like that one that used to catch and kill stories for the famous conspiracy theorist I mentioned earlier. When people are using the term "fake news" to describe well respected media like the Wall St Journal or the Washington post, they aren't doing it because of a study that they read that found that these organisations were simply fabricating 40% of their reports - they are doing it because they heard the conspiracy guy doing it and thought that it was a clever rebuttal.

They know well that CNN, BBC, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, WSJ etc are far more accurate than the news that is tailored to them which promotes Seth Rich and QAnon conspiracy theories. When people use the term in here, it's not that they think that the organisations are actually fabricating stories. It's that they don't like the facts that are being reported and they think that calling them "fake news" is an actual argument. It's a complete misuse of the English language and logic itself.


On the point about the Iraq war and the dodgy dossier, I remember that the papers published the claims of the dossier. The Sun newspaper, for example went with headlines about the infamous 45 minute claim. This claim was of course bogus but that is not fake news. The dossier existed, the 45 minute claim was in there and reading past the headline would have made clear that this claim came from the dossier. It was not fabricated by The Sun. Sure, it was pro-war scare-mongering from a paper with a long history of misleading headlines but it wasn't "fake news".

And finally, if BBC, AP, Reuters, WaPo, NYT and the rest of the reputable media are to be described as "fake news", then where the hell is the "not fake news"? FOX, OAN, indymedia, RT, Breitbart, Gemma O Doherty, some guy with a social media account?

It's a stupid and dishonest term when used in that context.

You've pretty much precisely defined the term to exclude mainstream news sources from it, to skip the entire grey-area/chasm between traditional/mainstream news sources and conspiracy theorists, and defined it as 'just talking about those silly conspiracy theorists' - in precisely the way the term is intended to smear all non-mainstream news stories as conspiracy theorists - and that particular use of the term as you put it, seems to have mod agreement from that forum.

The chasm in between, being the huge amount of blogs from individual journalists, smaller independent publications etc. etc. (where people like Glenn Greenwald started out), that get arbitrarily lumped in with the 'fake news' category because they're not mainstream/big enough, and more especially, if they disagree with the mainstream.

There isn't much point us debating that though, better to just note the heavy contention over the concept of 'fake news' and what it defines, that it's heavily regarded as a term of censorship by many (e.g. Greenwald for one - no small time blogger anymore) - and given all of this and that we both think the term gets deployed in a regularly stupid/inaccurate and dishonest way - then we should be able to agree that it must have no place in making moderating decisions, bar perhaps removing the term from serious discussion altogether.

On the Iraq war dossier and whatnot - without getting into the details, I still consider blindly regurgitating false/fake/made-up government claims as being 'fake news', if there is to be any kind of honest definition of the term. Such a distinction against that, would again serve to bolster the term being used primarily to defend mainstream views.