
Jonathan Albright, a Digital Sleuth Exposing Fake News - ehudla
https://www.wired.com/story/shadow-politics-meet-the-digital-sleuth-exposing-fake-news/
======
kryogen1c
Calling YouTube fake news is a travesty. It's actually just not news at all.

Before I gave up and unfriended them, I used to try and debate some FB friends
that believed in chem trails, flat Earth, and other ridiculous things. I
wasn't arguing against logic, reason, or science. I was arguing with YT
channels Richie From Boston and others ( I wont link it; that rabbit hole is
left to the reader).

The last thing that was said to me before unfriending was "i see what you're
doing. That's real low energy, man."

I think arguing for the public's hearts and minds has more to do with the
former than latter.

~~~
rhcom2
I was once in a restaurant waiting for take out reading a newspaper and a guy
came up to me to tell me all newspapers were fake and you couldn't trust them
(before going on a rant about the Rothschilds). I asked him where he got his
information about the world and he told me "videos on the internet."

I don't even know how you begin to have a real conversation with that as a
starting point.

~~~
sethrin
The thing to recognize is that they are not using the same truth-finding-
function that you are. That may in fact mean that you can't meaningfully
compare truths. You are being empirical; they are either relying on "it makes
sense" (rationalism, probably) or they are relying on their trust in the
person making the statement. I'm not sure what the solution to this problem
is, but it's probably not empirical evidence, since that isn't what they
consider to be valid. Mostly I think the solution is to teach children science
and history, and that if they get to be adults without having those frameworks
of understanding, there's no real hope of acquiring them. I'd like to believe
that's just cynicism though.

------
belorn
Ever since last winter I am a bit cautious when articles like this pop up. I
was on a conference where one of the handful tracks was fact checking, and a
keynote speaker used images like the one in the article to illustrate how news
media has failed during the 2016 election. One image that specially caught my
attention was a word cloud made from polls about what voters knew about each
candidate, and the speaker made a big point that all the major scandals was
missing from Trumps side but the Clinton side was full of it.

This rang all kind of warning bells, so I went and looked up the source and
suddenly it made all good sense. The polls was done between the start of the
preliminaries (which happen to be around the time wikileaks started publishing
their stuff) and ended a couple months before the election day, and all those
"missing" scandals about Trump that made international news are all more or
less during those last couple of months. In that context the word cloud
perfectly matched more or less everything what international news had been
writing about the two candidates during the preliminaries and shortly
afterward before the election campaign had really started. The researchers
even noted this in their original paper, pointing out that if the polls had
been done closer to election date then the data would look very different.

I could have used many of the same material to hold my own keynote about how
news has successfully informed the public correctly. I notified the conference
organizers, but I doubt it had any effect since the message followed the
political tides right now. People want to believe that fake news caused the
election results, and that is to me a very worrying. First we need to
establish if it did, and it seems that everyone is skipping that step.

~~~
tcbawo
Informing the public correctly, or accurately parroting one candidate's
desired message about the other candidate(s)? It seems clear to me that the
media are afraid of losing access and retaliation at the business level for
granting unfavorable coverage. It's all become a circus.

~~~
kryogen1c
This only surprising if you think the media's positive feedback mechanism is
accurate and reliable news. They're only requirement is to make money -
information is secondary.

~~~
rhizome
This is a thought-terminating cliché by now. "The media" is not one thing that
has a single requirement for existence. Generalizations break down upon
examination, but this is just useless cynicism.

~~~
kryogen1c
I'm not sure why you're so critical of what I posted. It's not meant to be
thought-terminating or useless. I think it's important to recognize the system
is not oriented to dry, fact-dense information. TV doesn't generate research
papers or doctoral theses. It requires entertained viewers; it's only as
"news" as it is because that's what the demographic wants, but no more.

~~~
tcbawo
It's the same reason why Hollywood doesn't produce less formulaic or smarter
movies. It's a business, and their first priority is making money.

------
Jerry2
I posted this before but after reading about all this "fake news" phenomena, I
came across this TEDx talk by Sharyl Attkisson: "How Real Is Fake News?" [1].
She's a former reporter for CBS News and in the video, she explains where the
term comes from, who's behind it and what the long-term consequences are. If
you have 10 min of free time, give it a watch.

She also gave another amazing talk on corporate astroturfing and media
manipulation [2]: "Astroturf and manipulation of media messages"

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQcCIzjz9_s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQcCIzjz9_s)

[2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-
ZZtEU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU)

~~~
crdoconnor
>where the term comes from

Apparently it wasn't really used before November 9th, 2016 and then suddenly
it became a talking point on certain US news networks:

[https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%...](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%22fake%20news%22)

~~~
avivo
The term was popularized from reporting by Craig Silverman which he had been
going on for years as described here
[https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/i-helped...](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/i-helped-
popularize-the-term-fake-news-and-now-i-cringe) .

It started to become widely used after this article
[https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/viral-
fa...](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/viral-fake-
election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook) , showed the top 5 "fake"
stories had more Facebook engagement than the top 5 "mainstream" stories.

The term and coverage was grounded in a real phenomenon, though many people in
the field (myself included) prefer to use other terms.

~~~
dredmorbius
The term itself dates to the late 1980s, and formerly referred to corporate-
produced propaganda in the form of audio- and video- news releases (AVRs and
VNRs).

 _A search of the Nexis media database indicates that the term was initially
used more broadly. In May 1989 Adweek writer Barbara Lippert panned ads in
which former newsreader Linda Ellerbee appeared "in a fake news setting"
hustling Maxwell House coffee. In August that year Ad Day's Ed Buxton
criticized the use of "the fake news bite" where reporters re-enacted news
events as part of a news story._

 _However, it was a cover article by David Lieberman titled "Fake News" in the
February 1992 edition of TV Guide that popularized the term. In his article
Lieberman took the media and PR industry to task over video news releases. He
argued that if footage from VNR's were used in news it should be labelled so
that viewers were aware of its origin. If not, he argued, media outlets risked
undermining their own credibility if they "pretend out of pride that what they
broadcast is real news, instead of labeling it for what it is."_

[https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fake_news](https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fake_news)

------
vowelless
> He discovered a trove of exposed Cambridge Analytica tools in the online
> code repository Github, long before most people knew the shady, defunct data
> firm’s name.

Anyone know what this is about?

~~~
severine
[https://www.upguard.com/breaches/aggregate-iq-part-
one](https://www.upguard.com/breaches/aggregate-iq-part-one)

------
CM30
Sigh, I admire the data analysis stuff this guy does and it's nice he tries to
track how many people follow Russian made accounts or what not, but I feel the
article/mindset here is still the same as in every political article recently:

People only voted for Trump because they were 'tricked'.

It's like media folk and political pundits cannot fathom the idea that the
political system is simply broken for many people. Yes it's likely trolls and
state sponsored propaganda helped, since a situation where people are so
heavily divided is easy to stir up controversy in.

But at the end of the day, what was on offer in the recent election? Four
years of 'more of the same' or someone who claimed to overthrow the system. A
choice between an insane person and a bunch of career politicians with no
charisma.

Just feels like it's a constant set of searches for a nefarious conspiracy
rather than accepting that the current system isn't offering much to anyone
outside of large corporations and that people were getting sick of it.

~~~
gromy
>> People only voted for Trump because they were 'tricked'.

This narrative implies we lack free will and is really insulting to people.
They’re using fear to position the reader as a potential victim who should
continue reading their articles to avoid a similar fate.

------
giantsloth
Did this guy pay for this article? It's a pure personal branding/ego piece
about a guy who watched a lot of YouTube and had also happened to write for
Washington Post (owned by Amazon) and The New York Times, known for publishing
absolute reprehensible garbage op-ed pieces justifying atrocities perpetuated
by neoliberals while ostensibly still being on the left.

~~~
wyck
I agree, reads like a pure bio PR, the title says it all. Lots of trust
building about his personally,the usual pantomime of nazi's and Russian bots,
no bias there..

So we should't trust content pushed by people centric platforms, and only
trusted news sources with well written introductions..

------
mirimir
> It’s Albright’s research that helped build a bruising story in The New York
> Times on how the Russians used fake identities to stoke American rage.

OK, so Albright has done outstanding work. His map[0] is mind-blowing.

But there's another key aspect: This isn't new. For sure, Russian
propagandists are using the Internet very effectively. However, Russian
influence on US culture and politics goes back many decades. Communist groups
in the US during the 30s-60s. US anti-war movements in the 60s-80s. The anti-
draft movement, with heavy Quaker involvement. And the Soviet-American
Friendship Society. That Ramparts article about Johnson and JFK's corpse.

And since the 90s, they've been focusing more on the radical right. Pushing
distrust of the US government. I saw that developing in cypherpunk
communities. But I wasn't sure, until RT appeared.

And by the way, I'm not arguing that Russia isn't justified in doing all this.
It's arguably just defense. Because the US does it too. In Afghanistan,
supporting the Taliban. In the Balkans. In the Ukraine. In Chile. I mean, they
broke up the Soviet Union, and one aspect was propaganda.

Anyway, just sayin'.

Edit: I'm not arguing that those were all Russian front groups. Just that they
were Russian influenced. And here's another example: Mad Magazine :) Also, the
US did the same. I mean, the US promoted modern/abstract art as a Cold War
weapon!

Edit: I'm not making this up.[1] Also, re support offered to the JFK
campaign.[2]

0) [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/04/google-
de...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/04/google-democracy-
truth-internet-search-facebook#img-4)

1)
[https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/ru...](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/russia-
facebook-race/542796/)

2) [http://time.com/4851449/trump-jr-russian-kennedy-
history/](http://time.com/4851449/trump-jr-russian-kennedy-history/)

------
dominotw
Speaking of news. Anyone know why CNN "leaking" debate questions to
presidential questions was quickly forgotten. Atleast with Russia we somewhat
know who the enemy but who is behind insidious actors who are leaking
questions and why are they doing it. Was it really just one bad actor?

~~~
untog
IMO, the question leaking is interesting because it highlights the information
asymmetry in the DNC leaks.

Donna Brazile was able to get a copy of the debate questions not because
someone hacked in and got them for her, but because CNN just... gave them to
her. Because she was a contributor to the network that was going to be talking
about the debate. There were Republican contributors in the same role who
presumably also received a copy of the questions (we would have heard if they
didn't, I'm sure), so I personally work on the basis that both candidates have
known the questions for (at least) CNN debates for quite some time. The only
reason we know the DNC did is because of the e-mail leaks, we certainly don't
know that the RNC _didn 't_. I don't say this to excuse anyone involved, just
that it's often sold as a left vs right scandal and I really don't think it
is. I think it shows how little CNN cares about the integrity of things like
this.

On a broader level, it isn't talked about that much because IMO it just didn't
have that big of an effect. The topic of the debate was known in advance
(economy, foreign policy, etc) and it wouldn't have taken a rocket scientist
to prepare a list of very likely questions. Certainly, it could have fueled
distrust in the mainstream media, but that's something people _do_ talk about
at great length, so in a way it's just become one evidence point in a much
larger debate.

~~~
kryogen1c
> The only reason we know the DNC did is because of the e-mail leaks, we
> certainly don't know that the RNC didn't.

This is prototypical of politics in America, and it's mind boggling: "the
current president said he'd do something and then didn't do it!" Said by every
D and R about every R and D. I wish we could examine systemicly, instead of
along party lines.

------
ptaipale
It's quite strange to complain about YouTube and call its front page" fake
news. That's pretty much like blaming "television" is fake news.

Youtube is a carrier, rather like UHF frequency is a band for transmitting
carriers. Your television can show anything, depending on which channels you
choose to watch. YouTube service also contains just about anything, and
there's no such thing as a "YouTube front page" like you have front page of a
newspaper. It's your own front page that comes up, based on what you've
previously been interested in.

If you are interested in fake news, you'll see fake news in YouTube. Just like
if you're interested in supermarket tabloid stories, you'll buy National
Enquirer and read that. It's your choice.

~~~
fishtank
YouTube is not a clear pass-through from one's truly held interests to the
computer screen. I am not interested in fake news, Peppa the Pig, superhero
movies, Logan Paul, Lil Durk, Time Magazine, and yet, loading up the YouTube
home page just now, there they are.

YouTube profits from showing people things they might be likely to click on,
and from collecting money from people who want people to click on their
things. This has something to do with "interests" in some sense of the word
but I do not think YouTube's recommendation engine is an unmediated expression
of a user's true desires.

~~~
kryogen1c
> YouTube is not a clear pass-through from one's truly held interests to the
> computer screen. I am not interested in fake news, Peppa the Pig, superhero
> movies, Logan Paul, Lil Durk, Time Magazine, and yet, loading up the YouTube
> home page just now, there they are.

With respect, there is no way this is correct - at least not in a meaningful
sense.

Are you logged in with a YouTube account? Does anyone else pass YouTube
traffic through your IP address, ie do you have children, nieces, nephews,
cousins, etc? Do you purposefully block ads and analytics that would make
suggestions like this random? Lil durk and Peppa pig are simply not going to
be recommended next to each other without reason.

I just loaded YouTube.com and scrolled for _dozens of pages_. There is nothing
remotley bizzarre. The most annoying thing is that it supports cut-and-
pasters, who take clips from source videos that I watch and repost them.

