
We Have a Bad News Problem, Not a Fake News Problem - fraqed
http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/17/we-have-a-bad-news-problem-not-a-fake-news-problem/
======
snarfy
Part of it is an audience problem.

We have good news, e.g. [http://hosted.ap.org](http://hosted.ap.org)

The problem is nobody will read it. It's not sensationalized and dramatized
enough. It's not edited into a series of one second video clips with an
ominous soundtrack, with an occasional clip of guys in black marching with
ak-47s because isis. It requires an attention span longer than 30 seconds.

~~~
dominotw
Then it's a failure of the website in their inability to deliver the message
in a format acceptable to the audience. "people are stupid" is a ridiculous
cop-out for their inability to understand basic human psychology. People are
not stupid, this site is competing with literally thousands of websites doing
the same thing. I have no words for sheer arrogance of calling people stupid
when they don't read this shitty website, we get our daily moral chiding from
nytimes, we don't need more of that.

~~~
datashovel
I don't get the impression the parent comment is saying "people are stupid". I
think the point is "news != entertainment". At least it shouldn't be. If you
want to be entertained go watch a movie. If you want to be informed well on a
topic then read or watch the "boring" news.

If the incentive structure props up the "news == entertainment" organizations
better than the "news == boring facts" organizations we have failed and will
ultimately pay the price.

------
makomk
The two do tend to blur together a bit through the actual news regurgitating
fake news, though. This isn't a new thing either - the Emma Watson 4chan story
a couple of years ago was a good example. That was seeded by a typical fake
news website that had tried similar tricks before, and as soon as the first
real news site failed to check the source was real and leapt on it everyone
else followed suit.

~~~
basch
the entire newscycle is complicit. if trump tweets something, 500 news
agencies write a variant of a story around the tweet.

the majority of news agencies dont seem to have the self discipline to NOT
cover a story the others are, out of fear of lost eyeballs. news agencies
could be even more powerful if they stopped amplifying bullshit, and were
selective over what deserved attention. instead every company covers every
viral event, creating a feedback loop of displacement. noise noise noise.

------
csredr
Article described a few instances of fake news but failed to give an example
of bad news. After reading it twice it's not clear if "bad" means "negative"
or "of poor quality."

~~~
PaulKeeble
\- The sciennce articles that come to conclusions the original study didn't,
there have literally been hundreds of them in the UK press over the past 10-15
years. The MMR scare is a prime example of bad news (its actually 99% fake but
with that nugget of truth in the middle that is distorted so much its fake
news).

\- All the bad tech news like all the magical batteries that are coming out
next year, and haven't actually every come out at all.

\- The political news where they attack someone for something they didn't do.

\- The news papers hacking into politicians/famous peoples computers to steal
private information and publishing stories on it.

\- The pieces about a person that are purely ad hominen and have little to
nothing to do with the job they do.

\- The pieces that endanger people doing dangerous jobs around the globe,
especially things like famous people working in Afghanistan and necessitating
them to quit their jobs.

\- The news that is just "he said" which has even become twitter quotes now.
Just presenting that with no actual points, history or anything else to
actually make an article.

\- Taking quotes from speeches that are the exact opposite of what the person
meant, just plain taken out of context.

That right there is 80% of the news we read every single day on news papers
around the world. I could go on and on about all the fake/bad news types we
see but my conclusion having personally fact checked a lot of news that could
be verified is that 95% of it is either a lie or intentionally misleading. Its
every news paper I have checked in the UK and the USA. Its scary how bad the
news is.

------
generic_user
> Even worse, the term "fake news" is now being so broadly applied as to refer
> to news outlets that evince a political slant (or, currently, those
> perceived as having "helped Donald Trump get elected").

> Those on the more liberal end of the political spectrum might decry Fox News
> Channel programming or the National Review's reporting as "biased" and
> unreliable, just as those on the more conservative end of the spectrum might
> similarly dismiss MSNBC's programming or The Nation's reporting. But we
> would be entering perilous territory if we started tagging every news source
> with a strong partisan political viewpoint as "fake news."

This is the problem. And the Corporate media has swooped in to fan the flames
of people who are caught up in the emotions of the election. They think this
might win them back some credibility in the eyes of the public or cement there
position as the respectable 'real news'. Its deeply disturbing whats going on.
The Corporate media and some over zealous activists are attacking the Press
itself. Its simply a call for blanket censorship of the press based on some
arbitrary designation such as 'fake news'.

~~~
pixl97
It's probably time to go back and rewatch Noam Chomsky's video "The Myth of
the Liberal Media". I believe it was from 10 years or so ago. His premise is
there is no liberal (or even conservative) media, just a large corporate
media.

~~~
generic_user
Yes, and also "Manufacturing Consent"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent)

The corporate media will do everything they can to maintain the status quo
including attacking the alternative media as 'fake news'.

------
desireco42
Corporate media was pushing one candidate heavily, it didn't get elected, now
they are pushing story that people somehow read fake news, on Facebook! :),
implying that people are not good or smart enough (unlike them). That
condescending attitude got us where we are.

Problems are not as simple. There is not nearly enough good reporting,
analysis. War is promoted heavily. TechNews are last few years plagued by what
I call 'sponsorship reporting'. Apple always get glowing reviews no matter
what. What I believe is most troubling, is that even people who participate in
this started to believe in this news.

Anyhow, good news is that we are talking about it and push for change is
present. We need a lot more respect for other people views before anything can
happen. This is most lacking now.

------
rabboRubble
After getting a reference to a Peanuts cartoon, that turned out to not be a
Peanuts cartoon but something from ImageBlitz (now defunct) that was also
supported by white power nationalists on Stormfront, I am thoroughly vetting
everything.

Get a picture > check Snopes > put photo through a photo forensic application
> report back to the sender and everybody they sent the image to.

When I'm accused of being left wing because of this due diligence, I make sure
my accusers know that I am an equal opportunity debunker. Find me a liberal
left leaning image and I'll try to debunk that.

------
jquast
Wasn't it Norm Macdonald who invented "fake news"?

~~~
astrodust
That news is now more truthful than the real news.

------
japanese_donald
The problem is that we have no real journalism anymore. Most journalists now
are keyboard warriors that just take hearsay and rumors they heard on Twitter
and create a story out of it. If they don't do it, someone else will and it
takes too much time to actually investigate it properly.

With the viral nature of social media, false stories become fact really
quickly.

I feel like Stephen Glass (the journalist that faked all of those news stories
in the 90s while working for the New Republic) wouldn't even get fired if it
happened now.

I'm all for the freedom of the press, but there needs to be consequences for
completely false stories that could actually hurt someone's livelihood.

------
dominotw
when did snopes turn into some kind of political fact-checking website ? Isn't
snopes literally two guys running this site from their bedroom? Not biased at
all.

[http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/28/snopes-caught-lying-
about-...](http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/28/snopes-caught-lying-about-lack-
of-american-flags-at-democratic-convention/)

~~~
hga
_when did snopes turn into some kind of political fact-checking website?_

At least since they hired this self-admitted biased person to do political
"fact checking": [http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-
websi...](http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websites-
political-fact-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/) although she isn't
the credited author of the item the Daily Caller calls out.

~~~
dominotw
But, The owner of Snopes is a registered independent. This basically
guarantees that Snopes is unbiased truth.

