
Confessions of a Fake News Writer - unquote
https://medium.com/s/story/confessions-of-a-fake-news-writer-62d8c3d28c1b
======
henriquemaia
I may sound too jaded, but how do I know this piece (or book, the one reviewed
here?) is not fake? Maybe I've gone way meta on this, but isn't kind of
oxymoronic to write about how one fakes what one wrote and then expect the
reader to take that particular writing seriously? The Kantian in me is
particularly bothered with this. ;)

Edit: typos.

~~~
pas
It seems to be a parable. Maybe the story is not true, maybe it is, it doesn't
make it less insightful about the trends of the last decade about the emergent
phenomena of massively profitable fake content publishing.

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
> Maybe the story is not true, maybe it is, it doesn't make it less insightful
> about the trends of the last decade about the emergent phenomena of
> massively profitable fake content publishing.

I'd say that depends. If this story paraphrases a bunch of facts we know to be
true from other sources, then I see your point.

But if this story is not literally true, then we should be very cautious about
using it as the grounding for other beliefs.

~~~
pas
It serves as a possible mental model for how to think about (advertisement-
driven) content/publications on the Internet.

------
return-value
Even when stories aren’t made up there seem to be a clear focus on generating
attention, because our attention is the real product on free news. That’s had
a social media effect on news, and much like our Instagram profiles, it’s so
heavily edited, that truth has lost its place, even when people aren’t
intentionally lying. Obviously there is a difference, but I think it’s getting
smaller by the minute.

This is exactly why I pay for news. Because fake or not, my attention is worth
more to me than what everyone of the free media outlets are giving me in
return.

I have a subscription to a news paper, that only comes out once a week and
only has paid content. By only coming out once a week, I get the added benefit
of its content being the digested sum of what actually mattered. If something
dramatic happens, that I can’t wait to read about, I’ll turn on public
service.

The only area where I’m not doing this is in tech, but tech news aren’t really
important.

I do feel sorry for the author, I know the guilty learn not to feel guilty,
but lying for a living must be absolutely terrible in the long run.

~~~
rahimnathwani
Which weekly newspaper? I'd love a recommendation. For me, this used to be The
Economist, but either the quality of their journalism has gone down, or I've
become better informed and thereby also more discerning.

~~~
pas
Could you please point to pieces by The Economist that made you unsubscribe?

~~~
rahimnathwani
Sorry, it's been a while (over a year) and I don't feel like resubscribing
just to find examples to support my point.

But, pas, if you work for The Economist in an editorial position, and are
asking because you want to take action based on feedback, then feel free to
contact me via email.

~~~
pas
I'm just a curious bystander, I'm of course interested in the actual piece,
but much more so in your recollection of their
errors/faults/misdeeds/inaccuracies.

------
artellectual
This whole fake news thing is interesting for me, the author mentioned that
real honest news just don’t get as many clicks. At the end of the day I think
we’re tuned to sensationalist things that trigger our emotion in some ways
much like the feeling we get when we watch movies or read fictitious writings.

Because of social media and being driven my vanity metrics all the time have
we as a collective lost the ability to discern the real from the fake? I think
this is something worth questioning.

~~~
spuz
> have we as a collective lost the ability to discern the real from the fake?

I don't think so. Even people who frequently click on fake news articles
probably would accept the content they read is probably fake. Those articles
satisfy curiosity and relief from boredom on a level that's different from the
one we use to think critically. Even if the content is fake does not mean that
it is not fulfilling its purpose or even harming readers' ability to see it as
fake.

------
EvilMonkeyMat
This is mostly why I have come to hate most social media: too many people
around me share this crap, most of the time, without even reading it I guess.
I open Facebook and within seconds, I'm hit with mixed feelings of sadness,
anger, despair and anxiety (something I'm actively working on).

I recently installed my own Mattermost instance where I invited close friends
and some family who I trust won't share all this crap.

Fantastic article! Thanks for sharing!

------
dredmorbius
"There is no such thing in America as an independent press. I am paid for
keeping honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. If I should
allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, before twenty-
four hours my occupation, like Othello's, would be gone. The business of a New
York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to
vilify, to fawn at the foot of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race
for his daily bread. We are the tools or vassals of the rich men behind the
scenes. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the
property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

An anonymous New York journalist (actually John Swinton), quoted in Hamilton
Holt's _Commercialism and Journalism,_ 1909.

[https://archive.org/stream/commercialismjou00holtuoft#page/2...](https://archive.org/stream/commercialismjou00holtuoft#page/2/mode/2up)

The book -- a speech given at UC Berkeley -- is a fast, easy, information-
packed, and insightful read from the dawn of the advertising-driven journalism
age. I recommend it strongly.

------
thewizardofaus
I find that I'm significantly happier when I don't read or watch the news. In
this case; ignorance is bliss.

~~~
jacquesm
Being informed is important when you're > voting age, besides that you might
end up in a world that you hate because you chose not to want to know what
direction it was headed in.

~~~
thinkingemote
There's the theory that you will get informed of what is important by other
humans rather than the news. This assumes that one lives in a social way and
talk to a wide range of people. It also means you won't get to know about
celebrities or far off troubles.

------
cabaalis
> We wrote about weed day in and day out, extolling both real and exaggerated
> virtues of cannabis. The company told us to describe it as a miracle plant
> that could do all sorts of extraordinary things, including halting
> migraines, resolving insomnia, and, um, curing cancer.

Assuming the linked article is not itself fake, it sounds like their employer
was involved in some strong astroturfing.

------
danaliv
If you want to see the true cost of an ad-based internet economy, this is it.

~~~
CM30
It's basically turned all the world's media into the equivalent of a tabloid.
Things like the Daily Mail and the Sun and the Daily Star were doing this sort
of thing way before the internet ever existed, and now the ad model has
basically turned their style of reporting into the only way to make money.

------
cgoecknerwald
> "I find it hard to trust any of it, and there are only a handful of sites I
> will rely on for accurate reporting."

Boy, would I like to know which sites.

~~~
djflutt3rshy
I’d start with sites that don’t rely on advertising revenue to stay afloat. So
probably subscription sites like the Economist and Wall Street Journal, and
public news sources like NPR and PBS. Though for the latter there is the
pressure of government to consider.

~~~
rahimnathwani
Both of the subscription sites you mention have ads in both their paper and
electronic editions. They receive a significant proportion of their revenues
from advertisers. They don't have high net profit margins.

What makes you think they don't rely on advertising revenue to stay afloat?

~~~
slavik81
I was curious about the details, so I looked up The Economist's 2018 annual
report. They get 17% of revenue from advertisements, while 60% of revenue
comes from subscriptions. Their operating profit is 13% of revenue.

~~~
rahimnathwani
Right, but of course without ads they would save some cost as they wouldn't
need people to sell ads, they could get rid of a bunch of ads-related overhead
costs etc.

If the operating margin on the ads part of the business is less than ~25%,
then they could break even without ads. Of course, breaking even is worse than
making 35MM profit each year.

------
jypepin
Not sure if it's a joke or not, but at the bottom of the story I have this:

"YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: Read These 15 Books Before Starting Your Next Startup,
Side Project"

------
jypepin
Speaking of news, and the negative effect some people here share it brings
them, I've been received "bit of news" by email everyday and it's great. A few
important news everyday. I usually don't even read the articles, just quickly
glance at the headlines.

[http://bitofnews.com/](http://bitofnews.com/)

~~~
renjimen
The Economist’s Espresso is also great for bite size news every day.

~~~
reaperducer
I just tried to look at that online to see what it's like.

I was immediately greeted with "You've reached your article limit."

Interesting for a publication I've never read before. I guess my limit is
zero.

~~~
renjimen
Unfortunately it's a paid-for app. You should be able to get the first month
for free to see if you like it.

------
everdev
> later realized that this DJ buys so much advertising space that he
> effectively edits the magazine.

That's the main problem isn't it? It would be nice if publications could opt
in to putting some type of badge on an article that indicates it was written
without corporate or political influence, with jail time if you lie. It's like
writing content under oath. I think that would help visually distinguish news
you can trust.

~~~
CM30
Well, one of the features my own news platform had was a giant banner saying
any influences behind the piece (like the presence of review copies, personal
relationships with sources, etc), with the rule being that the platform would
ban those who lied. So I guess that's like the flip side of this idea.

But the issue is that regardless of what you do, controversy and biases will
creep in for all kinds of reasons. Even if the company doesn't gain anything,
the writer/creator likely gains from their work being heavily shared...

------
gus_massa
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18099217](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18099217)

~~~
dang
That one was a rip-off posted by a spammer. We changed the URL to the correct
article for a while, but when this submission appeared, I thought it would be
better to move the discussion here. (That's also why there are so many
comments on a submission that doesn't have many upvotes yet.)

------
ImaCake
I think it's interesting that this article is something that supports
facebook's interests in appearing to care about fake news. Even articles
against fake news are influenced by the same forces!

------
voodootrucker
This outcome was inevitable given the incentives of an advertising-based
internet economy.

Perhaps it's time to start talking about a ban on online advertising
altogether?

When customers pay for things, capitalism works.

~~~
dao-
> When customers pay for things, capitalism works.

For some definition of works that probably not everybody will share -- for
instance, people living in 3rd world countries or customers who paid for an
"eco-friendly" diesel car.

------
TruffleLabs
The article is by “Winston Wordsworth” and to see (or write) comments on
Medium you have to be a paid member of Medium.

Hummmmm

~~~
masonic
Burgess Meredith's character in The Twilight Zone episode where he portrayed a
literate dissident in a totalitarian regime was named Wordsworth.

------
andrewclunn
It's no wonder that single person shows are popular on YouTube and the
alternative media. An individual can be trusted in a way an institution never
can be.

~~~
reaperducer
_An individual can be trusted in a way an institution never can be._

Alex Jones is somewhat less reputable than the _New York Times_.

For me, longevity is a leading sign that a source is doing something right.

~~~
firic
Not every individuals, but there are people that are trustworthy. Institutions
rarely are because they are only as trustworthy as the people on top who
change every once in a while

------
AbuAssar
what if this editorial itself is fake news?

