Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To deny that there is indeed fake news is to deny reality.
On the internet, a good way to spot fake news is when you see a clickbait title. Anytime you see something that says something like, "You won't believe what Gowdy did this time!" Rest assured that what's coming is nothing major, and, more often than not, not much reality behind it. Oh, and it's a REALLY good idea to actually follow the links you see in the article. More often than not, you're going to find more fake news to back up their fake news. If you see images, find the source of those images - so much bs could have been prevented had people not taken some of those "Wikileaks email" images at face value. GO to the actual Wikileaks page and try to find that email. Not there? GUESS WHAT?
This was a good post, I agree with the rest as well pretty much, didn't wanna spam the forum with a huge quote.
I will also say that another good tactic is instead of running to news sites that align with your beliefs, often people are better served reading news from places that contradict their own beliefs. With the way the search and news ranking algorithms that are currently used function it is very easy to find yourself inside an information bubble of your own construction that you did not even know you were in.
When I try to find the unbiased truth I normally start by finding the most left wing and the most right wing sources on the topic I can and then read both. Alot of the time you can construct a better picture of what is actually going on this way.
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 12-13-2016 at 08:55 AM..
To deny that there is indeed fake news is to deny reality.
Of course there is fake news. A couple of examples from the traditional media include the stories on the Ferguson "Hands up, don't shoot" meme and the 'Donald Trump has no path to 270' meme.
Seriously, I'm seeing this a lot on this forum as well as others, and Twitter in particular. People who disagree with the views of someone else label all evidence presented contrary to their own views as "fake news." How can we have a civilized democracy if millions flat out reject basic facts and reporting if it doesn't fit their narrative?
First, there has to be a distinction between "fake" news and "biased" news. Nearly all media sources are biased today, but very few admit it. I think the "fake" news talking points propagated by the left will ultimately foster more critical thinking within the viewing public, resulting in legitimate objective news reporting and/or admitted bias. This is not good for the Democratic Party.
Second, there has always been misinformation propagated by the media, i.e., Dan Rather, Brian Williams, Chris Cuomo, Dateline NBC, Jayson Blair, etc. It's only an issue now because Clinton supporters are looking to blame her loss on everything but the actual reason she lost. That reason being Clinton was a candidate with no message.
To me, fake news is when something is reported without having all of the facts - or even trying to get all of the facts, or even half of the facts. Today, too many are trying to be the first with the "big story", facts be damned, just get there first.
Take a look around at some online newspapers. I'm astonished that some of these people even have a job with their horrific grammar, spelling issues, and complete disregard for actual facts.
I also find it fascinating to listen to Brian Williams talk about fake news, or Hillary "I was under sniper fire" have the audacity to talk about fake news.
Finally, any time I see: "unnamed source", I no longer consider it credible. And when I do hear a story that seems sketchy, I find out who owns what and what their motivation is for spreading the story. Follow the money. That's where you find the truth...that includes those click bait titles.
I agree, it's nuts. Much of the blame goes to news consumers, IMO.
As you know, the media is all about gaining as many followers as possible in order to maximize advertising revenue. If fake news gets more clicks/hits/likes than real news, the media will be incentivized to put out more fake news.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand." -- Josh Billings
What are the consequences of calling everything "fake news"?
Panic. Unreasonable and nearly inconsolable. Remember when the Newtown shootings happened? And the media reported it was some guy and everyone flooded that poor guys facebook and everything else - and it was the WRONG guy?
Unfortunately, our society has become so enamored with instant gratification that we have to know the story NOW. We have no patience and it leads to expectations. And then when things end differently, we go on a rampage. Never knowing the full story.
Our society must learn patience and critical and logical thinking skills. But most are more concerned with the Kardashians.
Seriously, I'm seeing this a lot on this forum as well as others, and Twitter in particular. People who disagree with the views of someone else label all evidence presented contrary to their own views as "fake news." How can we have a civilized democracy if millions flat out reject basic facts and reporting if it doesn't fit their narrative?
Who are you trying to kid!?
You liberals have been accusing Fox of broadcasting fake news since day one. Now that there really ARE fake news outlets you get all "outraged"!
You liberals have been accusing Fox of broadcasting fake news since day one. Now that there really ARE fake news outlets you get all "outraged"!
To be fair, Fox is called "Fox Entertainment News" for a reason.
Fox blurs the line between the actual news reporting and their editorial commentary.
So, while it's not entirely fake, it is not entirely just "news."
And, they don't delineate well between what is and is not news, so people flock to it looking for the echo chamber that reflects their own thoughts, and walk away thinking all they hear on that channel is "the truth."
Which is not the case.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
That's a big part of the problem. It started way back before the millennium rolled around and people feared that Y2K would see us all as part of a big apocalypse and the preppers sprung up from this mess and started up so many sites on the internet full of wild conspiracies that people who were less savvy fell for that crap.
Now, we have even more widespread use of the internet and we have less education on how to discern truth from fiction. So, we have people out looking only for the stories that support the narrative that they want to hear, and not ever checking to see if it is being carried someplace other that Breitbart or Occupy Democrats. Both of those places can be reporting a legit story or one that is a load of manure.
So, the easiest rule to follow is the one that says "go find multiple sources that don't look like old GeoCities web pages and you increase the odds that the story you are following is legitimate."
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
