
Fake news: an insidious trend that's fast becoming a global problem - bootload
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/02/fake-news-facebook-us-election-around-the-world
======
wallace_f
To offer a different viewpoint on this: [http://observer.com/2016/11/bernie-
sanders-presidential-run-...](http://observer.com/2016/11/bernie-sanders-
presidential-run-was-sabotaged-by-fake-news/)

The war on "fake news" bothers me. The Ron Paul Institute & Wikileaks, both
won a badge of honor by being claimed to be "Fake News" and "Russian
Propaganda" in the Washington Post's "news" section.

Sources: [Article in
question]([https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-
prop...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-
effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-
say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html))

[The Source that Article Cites]([http://www.propornot.com/p/the-
list.html](http://www.propornot.com/p/the-list.html))

Truly shameful journalism by the Washington Post.

~~~
bootload
The fact a candidate was scuppered does't mean fake news isn't a problem.

 _" Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, the
publisher of Observer Media."_

And this disclaimer at the bottom.

~~~
wallace_f
> The fact a candidate was scuppered does't mean fake news isn't a problem.

Sure, I agree with you, it's a problem - actually, the article I linked to
doesn't deny that. In fact, it actually says that in the title.

From the article I linked:

> WikiLeaks emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton
> campaign chair John Podesta implicated several mainstream media journalists
> in colluding with the Clinton campaign.

> In 1983, 50 corporations controlled most of the media in the United States.
> By 2000, that number had dropped to six corporations

What's scary is the US media is trying to marginalize independent media, for
reasons of erroneous reporting, however they're also guilty and have been
caught red handed of "fake news."

The increasing monopoly on disseminating information to the public, along with
declining press freedoms, declining freedom of speech and evidence the US
Gov't is engaging in propaganda inside the US is all a very scary and
disturbing trend.

Technology won't matter too much anymore if our civil liberties are gone.

~~~
bootload
_" What's scary is the US media is trying to marginalise independent media,
for reasons of erroneous reporting, however they're also guilty and have been
caught red handed of "fake news."_

These are good points @wallace_f.

 _" Technology won't matter too much anymore if our civil liberties are
gone."_

Yes.

------
mindcrime
It's not just "fake news" in the sense of stories that are made up from "whole
cloth" so to speak... we have an equally large problem with "fake news" which
is nominally real, but has been spun, distorted and tweaked so as to promote
on agenda or another. Mix "fake" news and "fake" news together and the whole
mix is just one big fester cesspool of malfeasance.

It really makes it hard to know what to believe. I mean, if you read a post
from the "Denver Tribune" you know that's fake, since there is no such outlet.
But if you read something on CNN or MSNBC, why would you believe it when you
know about the various shady schemes going on where journalists and
politicians conspire with each other behind the scenes, etc? Or if a paper
reports "numbers" (jobs data, climate data, etc.) from the government, why
believe those number are real?

The more you think about it, the harder it is to take anything at face value.
In the end, it takes a lot of work, that most people probably aren't willing
to do, to try and filter this stuff out. I mean, you can read/watch/listen to
news from multiple sources, and look for the commonalities, or analyze news
with an eye for known existing biases, etc. Or if you're equipped to do so,
you can do you own statistical analysis on the numbers your given and see if
they make sense. But realistically, how many people are going to expend all
that effort?

~~~
bootload
_" you can read/watch/listen to news from multiple sources, and look for the
commonalities, or analyze news with an eye for known existing biases, etc. Or
if you're equipped to do so, you can do you own statistical analysis on the
numbers your given and see if they make sense. But realistically, how many
people are going to expend all that effort?"_

Good point. This is why knowing who writes the articles and knowing sources
matter. When a serious news article is written, journalists cross-check the
facts. In the Watergate scandal, Woodwood/Bernstein used three different
sources for each assertion. [0] The source, _" Deep Throat"_ who remained
anonymous for many years was the deputy director of the FBI at the time.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal#Role_of_the_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal#Role_of_the_media)

------
DefaultUserHN
The only #FakeNews I saw this election cycle is all those fake polls by the
mainstream media.

