Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,901 Year: 4,158/9,624 Month: 1,029/974 Week: 356/286 Day: 12/65 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is behind the "False News" paranoia? Is it paranoia? Does "False News" exist?
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 5 of 16 (845822)
12-21-2018 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by LamarkNewAge
12-20-2018 10:14 PM


LamarkNewAge writes:
What is behind the "False News" paranoia? Is it paranoia? Does "False News" exist?
I think False/Fake News exists.
I think it's existed long before the last 5 years or so.
I think it's term has sort of been abused lately, though.
It seems to mean "news I don't want to hear about" more than purposefully-inaccurate news, though.
News has it's own built-in method for detecting falsities.
Sort of like science, but not quite as rigorous.
When news is inaccurate - people know about it. They complain and the news agency corrects it.
If too many complain about the same company, or if a company slacks off on making accuracy corrections - people simply go somewhere else for their news.
The dollar talks, and forces news companies to remain accurate.
Do some things slip through the cracks? Absolutely. Some by accident, some on purpose.
Is this anything more than a blip on the radar? No.
Is there a wide-scale, multiple news-agency conspiracy to force inaccurate stories onto the public? Absolutely not. There's too much money to be made proving them to be false and taking over their business.
So, what is the current day usage of "Fake News?"
It's a term used by people who want to say-whatever-they-can in order to make whatever-point-they-want at the moment.
It's usage today, has no connection with 'actually inaccurate news' because accurate news stories are called "Fake News" all the time, most notably by Trump.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LamarkNewAge, posted 12-20-2018 10:14 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Diomedes, posted 12-23-2018 10:39 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 10 of 16 (846139)
12-30-2018 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Diomedes
12-23-2018 10:39 AM


Diomedes writes:
What I try to do is focus on news sources that, while not perfect, at least give me the ability to review the information more dispassionately. BBC News from my perspective is pretty decent. It does lean left, but it has a world view including reporters in different geographic regions like Singapore. This gives different perspectives which I like. Bloomberg does that as well with offices in Hong Kong and Australia. And also, the PBS Newshour is still, in my opinion, a pretty well rounded news source.
Agreed.
Nothing of course is perfect.
Yes.
Not even the "self-correcting" part I mentioned is fool-proof.
It's true that the news will follow the money.
But the money doesn't always come from "people wanting to know the truth."
A lot of times the money comes from "people wanting to hear things that confirm beliefs they hold." (The "belief" may be religious or political or many various things.)
I'm not sure how to develop a system that counteracts this problem.
Although the pledge of social media streams like Facebook to "remove Fake News" (hopefully doing some sort of fact checking) seems to be a decent start.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Diomedes, posted 12-23-2018 10:39 AM Diomedes has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024