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.
QUESTION: For all the present-day (year 2016) controversy over so-called "fake news" (which is a valid issue to be concerned about and addressed), why doesn't the very long-standing "SUPERMARKET TABLOID publishing industry" ever get brought up? By-and-large, along with any elements of truth that they do or may have in them, they are undeniably filled with many many false or unprovable accusations, conspiracy theories, uncalled-for slanders and character assassinations, totally-invented stories and narratives (whether harmful stories or just plain innocuous stories but still totally invented), unproven or unprovable claims (e.g., medical miracles, visits from aliens from elsewhere in the universe, etc. etc. etc.), etc., etc., etc., . . . ad nauseum.
That is, if so many in our society are so concerned with the practice and phenomenon of so-called "fake news", why isn't the supermarket tabloid industry at-large reigned in majorly for libel, slander, public deception, et al? So many of their promoted stories can be picked apart and determined to be made up or else stories containing morsels of truth and them appending them with falsehoods (or at least with claims that can't truly be proven in a court of law or when otherwise subjected to intense scientific-like scrutiny). Shouldn't it be illegal and prosecutable to make a way-of-life and a profit-making enterprise out of being in the business of propagating lies and falsehoods (to deceive the public at any cost in order to make a profit or to accomplish some other political or economic or social-cultural objective)? Or whatever else their motive(s) is or are for being in the business of creating and propagating what can honestly be labeled as "fake news"?
Because it's yellow journalism and is presented in what is generally recognized as a "rag." Anyone with half a brain or more knows that's fake. But if they go too far, they can be sued for libel, and have been successfully sued. Also, their stories are about animals, aliens, and celebrities. Not political in nature.
The National Enquirer might have a story about Jennifer Aniston being pregnant, next to an article about a kangaroo giving birth to a human baby. The rag is obviously not a legitimate news source.
The FB stuff was presented as legitimate news articles, I think. Presented as legitimate political "news," when it wasn't true, was harmful, and one could not necessarily discern it wasn't true.
I remember years ago (around 1982) that a supermarket tabloid's front page story was that "Adolf Hitler in alive and well, living in Argentina...
At about that same time, my friends Gary and Andre took Gary's new video camera and made a video, "In Search of Hitler", where they speculated that Hitler had escaped from Germany, made his way up the Chesapeake Bay in a U-boat, and had been living in Fort Armistead. A scene of Gary emerging from one of the openings in the fort while saying, "Well, he's not in there." proved conclusively that he hadn't.
Why doesn't the very long-standing "SUPERMARKET TABLOID publishing industry" ever get brought up?
Well ?
the long-standing "SUPERMARKET TABLOID publishing industry" is basically Gossip yet people think Facebook is somehow "Gospel" even with their "fake" news that has surfaced post Election .
I think the tabloid industry has been around too long and has never been looked at with legitimacy. It is looked at as farce and for entertainment purposes. They cater to a niche audience, and are never used as credible news sources by mainstream outlets. It is also held in check via the legal system. The laws of the country protect against slander and libel, and these publications have had to pay damages where it's been determined they have crossed that line. I would imagine there would be greater freedom of speech concerns should they ever be looked at for a heightened regulation of content. I agree that they can absolutely be damaging to peoples reputations. I personally don't know anyone who cares about the trivial things they talk about, let alone reads them.
I think the difference would be that the mainstream outlets pass themselves as unbiased and credible, whereas the underlying narratives they posess are insidious.
Therein lies of the root of this "controversy". The MSM aren't threatened by the tabloids. The election of Trump has sent the undeniable signal that the MSM have lost control of the narrative they've spent so many years crafting and pushing. They're not concerned about "fake news". They themselves have perfected the art of it, after all. They're terrified because people have finally woken up and aren't listening to them anymore.
FB, Twitter et al. need some excuse to shut down/censor/ignore the stories and sources which don't fit the narrative. What better way to do that than just labeling them "fake"?
The Washington Post article(Oh, the irony!) with it's list of "fake news" sites was absolutely shameful. Even the left-leaning Intercept called it disgraceful.
QUESTION: For all the present-day (year 2016) controversy over so-called "fake news" (which is a valid issue to be concerned about and addressed), why doesn't the very long-standing "SUPERMARKET TABLOID publishing industry" ever get brought up?
Because anyone with a single brain cell knows those rags are for entertainment only.
If someone is so stupid that they actually believe that junk, they deserve to be left in the dark, IMO.
I think the tabloid industry has been around too long and has never been looked at with legitimacy. It is looked at as farce and for entertainment purposes. They cater to a niche audience, and are never used as credible news sources by mainstream outlets. It is also held in check via the legal system. The laws of the country protect against slander and libel, and these publications have had to pay damages where it's been determined they have crossed that line. I would imagine there would be greater freedom of speech concerns should they ever be looked at for a heightened regulation of content. I agree that they can absolutely be damaging to peoples reputations. I personally don't know anyone who cares about the trivial things they talk about, let alone reads them.
I think the difference would be that the mainstream outlets pass themselves as unbiased and credible, whereas the underlying narratives they posess are insidious.
Why doesn't anyone seem to bring up the SUPERMARKET TABLOID INDUSTRY when complaining about so-called "fake news"?
Because everyone knows it's fake, it's supposed to be fake, and it's all for entertainment.
Nowadays the 'real news' is pretty much the same, but they are purporting to report facts only.
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.
Why doesn't the very long-standing "SUPERMARKET TABLOID publishing industry" ever get brought up?
