
The godfather of fake news (2018) - ColinWright
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/the_godfather_of_fake_news
======
samizdis
Anyone interested in a broader history of fake news might like the book _This
is Not Propaganda_ , by Peter Pomerantsev. Decent review in The Guardian here:

[https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/aug/10/this-is-not-
pr...](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/aug/10/this-is-not-propaganda-
peter-pomerantsev-review)

Pomerantsev bio etc on Wikipedia:

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

~~~
montalbano
Also these three books are interesting:

Lippmann - Public Opinion

Bernays - The Engineering of Consent

Chomsky - Manufacturing Consent

------
go-red-team
It's no small task to create a program that can churn this stuff out
automatically using algos and such. Such articles need sources, and this leads
the way for fact-checkers. No source? Then you are immediately marked as
disreputable.

Although a common tactic that has worked for years (especially on Wikipedia)
is the act of linking to a source, only to find the page either doesn't exist,
or the source relies on another source, and that source relies on another
source, etc

~~~
djohnston
nowadays people just link to twitter posts as some sort of reliable first hand
source

------
fnord77
I thought I hit the end of the article as scrolling came to an abrupt halt at
the "The Birth of term fake news". Nope, there's scrolling resistance that you
have to "break through" as it cycles like a powerpoint. Awful layout. Fake end
of article

~~~
pmachinery
I already hated the design before that but persevered because the text was at
least readable, but gave up bothering at the point you mention.

------
forgingahead
This is too funny -- pompous BBC with their "other people spread fake news"
shtick.

All media outlets are guilty of bending the truth, often outright inventing
stories to fit their preferred narratives. This is not "new", this has just
been pearl-clutching since they've realised they no longer can control the
narrative in society. Go look up how the majority of western media outlets
were pushing "just the flu" about coronavirus as late as early March. (This is
BOTH on the left and right, nobody is innocent in this).

If you want to see the real history of fake news, or "founder" as it may be,
read up on Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst.

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

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

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

*Edit -- look, I don't take the downvotes personally, I get that this is a huge cognitive short-circuit for many folks who read this site -- a large part of your learning comes from reading and understanding from so-called authoritative sources. It is certainly very difficult to realise (in the most unpleasant way possible, ie your candidate lost an election, or your countrymen successfully voted against the EU, or that masks-dont-work-oh-wait-they-actually-do) that the sources you've learned some positive things in your life from have biases, are fallible, and with the rise of "measuring engagement", are all in huge race to the bottom for immense pandering and therefore carefully crafted narratives.

Feeling discombobulated is fine, but let's not lie to ourselves that any of
that is "news" or "fair and balanced".

Wishing all of you a good day.

~~~
new2628
Dear fellow HN'ers, please don't downvote a comment as a reflex if you
disagree with it and consider engaging a point on its merits. Hiding
viewpoints you disagree with creates an echo chamber.

~~~
op00to
Please don't try to influence people how to vote with replies to the comment.

~~~
LocalH
Outside of that, do you disagree with the rest of their statement?

------
rvz
> Just because it’s trending, doesn’t mean it’s true

Precisely. We simply shouldn't be too gullible to _believe everything_ we see
and here on the internet just because it is simply trending especially on
social media which most of the time a tweet, video or article can also be
taken out of context purposefully to create confusion, hype and obviously
disinformation.

But on the other hand, I'm not sure if this article is also talking about the
BBC here, since the dreadful Newsbeat and entertainment sections has lots of
this clickbait and fake-news level nonsense which look as if it were imported
from Buzzfeed.

~~~
ivanhoe
It takes 2 things for a news to be believable: it needs authority, that is to
come from sources you're inclined to believe or to be repeated many times, but
it also has to fit well with your own existing narrative. The 2nd is
absolutely necessary, you will never believe into something that goes against
your world views (even if it's true, often). We only buy into stories that fit
into the patterns that we're already susceptible to, and world views that we
already have.

~~~
pasabagi
I think this idea is a bit paradoxical - how then, do we ever change our
views? I think people simply reject isolated facts that are inconsistent with
the paradigm that explains the greater body of facts. Which is reasonable.
Einstein refused to accept that god plays dice, for instance.

~~~
ivanhoe
Usually we change views in many very small steps, slowly turning from one
direction to another. Also sometimes when confronted with a paradox in our
existing model of the world that invalidates our previous believes, but that's
extremely stressful event and also rare... fake news can't do that to you.
They just push the buttons that already exist. I'll never buy a fake news
promoting say anti-vaxxers' ideas, but give me something that proves something
I already believe in and I'll be sharing it all over (ok, not, by now I've
learned to be careful, but I'll have a strong impulse to do it)

------
netsharc
"Bill Gates" was trending on Twitter yesterday. I looked at the tweets and
many many tweets were claiming he wants to implement population control and
the Covid-19 vaccine will implant an ID in each recipient, which will be the
mark of the beast. I saw a Twitterer retweeting this stuff whose bio said
"Critical thinker". I thought of engaging, but then thought, "What's the
point?".

Depressing how far gone much of the other inhabitants of this planet are...

~~~
DangitBobby
If you call him on it, he might use more scrutiny next time. We definitely
don't win by not trying.

~~~
toss1
Sadly, it is more likely, you'll get in a mudslinging contest with a troll
paid to spread desinformatsiya.

You'll make sensible responses, then get back either some whataboutism with a
supposedly supporting but irrelevant article link, insulting meme, or some
other technique designed to destroy good-faith discussion or the concept of
truth.

Repeat a few cycles and then lookup the account and find that it is either new
w/few followers or has a history of troll/bot activity that as analyzed by
sites like Bot Sentinel [1]. Then, you report as fake and block.

The only exceptions I've found were not to people posting articles, but making
comments, where you can sometimes wind up in a discussion.

They are professionals (of varying skill), you are the person who can't tell
he is the mark.

This is almost always a game where the only winning move is to not play.

[1] [https://botsentinel.com/](https://botsentinel.com/)

~~~
netsharc
It'd be more comforting if they're being paid or they're bots, but the
depressing truth is, many many people probably believe the conspiracy theories
they believe.

~~~
toss1
Too many of both

edit:

tl;dr: Don't try to argue with conspiracy theorists - they are already
immunized against evidence and reason.

------
shrubble
Is it true, that Orwell's Ministry of Truth in his book 1984, was based on the
BBC?

Seems like discussion of what is true in news has been going on for a while,
yes?

~~~
tobylane
It’s somewhat true, but not really in the way it’s used. He worked there for
two years during WWII and didn’t like the language required in BBC news
reports. I don’t think that says anything about what content was allowed out,
which was restricted even after the war ended.
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/entries/d3a46264-89b...](https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/entries/d3a46264-89b5-3198-8143-5158da7ff20b)

------
insickness
The influence of fake news mills is overstated by corporate news media who
benefit by attempting to legitimize their own reporting. Russian collusion
turned out to be a few hundred thousand dollars worth of Facebook ads.
Bloomberg spent more than 900 million dollars and couldn't sway the election,
yet we're supposed to believe that some fake news stories on Facebook got
Trump elected.

~~~
DangitBobby
Dont forget the tens of thousands of fake Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc.
accounts that were so pivotal in spreading misinformation!

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/19/twitter-a...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/19/twitter-
admits-far-more-russian-bots-posted-on-election-than-it-had-disclosed)

~~~
knolax
I feel that this paranoia of bots has become a modern Red Scare. It becomes
impossible online to express certain unpopular opinions without being
instantly labeled a bot or shill no matter how well backed your argument is.
In fact I've seen people comment that "you should be afraid of the smart ones"
when it comes to bots. It seems that "bots" have simply become an intellectual
cop-out for most. On the other hand, I can find plenty of accounts on Reddit
that post endlessly with the same (popular) political agenda using shoddy
sources (think screenshots of headlines) that are invariably highly upvoted.
Despite this, you will not find accusations of shilling towards these
accounts.

~~~
DangitBobby
We know that those accounts exist, and that they were created and deployed by
numerous governments when opportunity struck. We can see their activity: what
countries they came from, what they were saying, and what hashtags they made
up. My understanding of the data is that they were pervasive and influencial
in the 2016 US President Elections and in many other socially sensitive events
such as the protests in Hong Kong. So I dont think the word paranoia is really
fair. It's a real, known problem. (Edit: and now there's evidence[1] that they
are spreading climate denialism as well).

Anyone calling someone a bot when they are clearly not a bot is probably just
being intellectually lazy, dishonest, or arguing in bad faith. But that's just
another flavor of the issues with political (or any rational) discourse we had
already. If it weren't bots, it would be something else.

And yes, shilling (and failure to recognize shilling) is endemic on that
platform. One of the many reasons I try to stay away from it now.

1\.
[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/21/climate-t...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/21/climate-
tweets-twitter-bots-analysis)

------
fnord77
> “I’m not some monster. I’m a liberal,” he says. “The goal isn’t money.”

 _proceeds to fabricate articles damaging to liberals because the money is
good_

~~~
keketi
He also claims his intention is to troll people.

> Once his stories go viral, the Facebook comments burst forth. And that’s
> when Christopher Blair the fake news writer becomes Christopher Blair the
> crusading left-wing troll.

> “The mission with the trolling first and foremost is we pull them into the
> comments [section underneath each fake article],” he says.

> It's then that he starts on the offensive. The faker becomes the exposer,
> weeding out and reporting the most extreme users among his fans.

Since Trump got elected, I would say that he ended up trolling himself.

