Subtle framing, selective quotation, anonymous sources, "repeat the lie" techniques, and so on, are the ones that I see happening today that are hard to immunize yourself from. Ironically, the people who fall for these are more likely to self-identify as being aware and clued in on how to avoid fake news.
Edit: See https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/05/Causes-of-death-i... for an example.
This was before Fox News became so powerful, and media became more explicitly ideologically divided. I sometimes wonder how much it has changed since.
But given how any left-wining news outlets Rupert Murdoch owns, probably there remains a lot of truth to the observation.
so peculiar that while existing in a 4d space, we are so prone to believing that politicians only operate on a 1d vector.
I'm a fun example. Of the major candidates in the last election, preference list read (best to worst) Ted Cruz, Bernie Sanders, (big gap) John Kasich, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton. This does not fit with ANYONE's idea of the political spectrum.
Why that order, and how do the most oppositely polarized candidates wind up on top? My top issue is NSA surveillance. Ted Cruz opposed NSA surveillance and has publicly voted and taken a stand on it. Sanders has questioned it and been luke-warm against it. Kaisich at least made some comforting noises about controls. The only good thing to hope for about Trump is that he will be incompetent. The remaining two are strongly pro-NSA and bureaucratically competent enough that they would have been able to push the NSA agenda forward.
That said, people like me are weird. As survey data shows, the parties are polarizing along the traditional left/right divide. See https://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarizati... for data showing that now over 90% of Democrats/Republicans are farther left/right than the average Republican/Democrat. While back in the mid-90s, there was a much, much larger overlap of views.
Look at Reagan's last election - he was hugely popular, and won by a massive margin in the electoral and popular votes. A big chunk of the country was happy voting for a democrat before Reagan, and went back to voting for one after him. I can't imagine a scenario like that these days.
Fake News is propaganda that consists of deliberate disinformation or hoaxes. Nothing mentioned mention here falls into a category of Fake News. Fake News creates cognitive dissonance and distrust. More subtler methods work differently.
"But mainstream media also does Fake News" arguments are whataboutism.
Trump supporters found themselves more strongly associated with such stories than the Democrats (not surprising given his support among right-wing social media,) so they attempted to reframe "fake news" as, itself, a fake phenomenon invented by the left to discredit alternative media out of fear of the threat it presented to the leftist media establishment status quo.
This to further the narrative that the mainstream media was little more than a propaganda wing of the DNC and its globalist masters, and that any Trump-critical stories from the MSM were likely to be fabrications and thus not to be trusted (but you could trust those stories on your Facebook feed about HRC having Parkinsons' disease or running a child sex slave ring out of a pizza parlor.)
And then Trump himself picked up on it somehow and now likes to label anything and anyone that criticizes him as fake news.
Ironically, the least likely thing to be called fake news nowadays is news that is actually fake.
If FOX news runs front-page mugshots non stop every time an immigrant commits a crime, that shows a massive bias and leads its readership to an incorrect worldview, but it's not "fake". If Honest Truth Online runs a story that a missing girl was murdered by an immigrant based on miniscule to no evidence, that's fake news.
I've been following the Andrew Yang campaign since his appearance on the Joe Rogan show and so far as I can tell MSNBC has been at it for months now.
The gall still astonishes me: 20 candidates qualified for the debates, he now polls in the top 8 and betting markets even place him in the top five, and they substitute someone who did not even qualify for the debate for him.
He only barely cracked the top 8 as of two weeks ago, and with a paltry 2% with a net favorable of +8 in Monmouth's latest poll, which is not very good. I don't really know much about the guy, but he's not making much of a showing in the polls so I'm not surprised that networks aren't focusing on him.
What MSNBC did, and has been doing for months now, is "conveniently", "innocently" not show him in graphics where he would belong. For example, when they show literally all other candidates except him.
Or, when they discussed the Monmouth poll, showed the list of the top eight names (AY is now 8), went through (again, literally) all names on the list up to number seven and then "conveniently", "innocently" on to the next slide.
What the hell?
> He only barely cracked the top 8 as of two weeks ago, and with a paltry 2% with a net favorable of +8 in Monmouth's latest poll, which is not very good.
I respectfully disagree with your assessment because it misses the context of these numbers. Top 8 in a field of 24 candidates, most of whom established career politicians with national platforms, is huge for someone who was virtually unknown until only a few months ago. The Rogan podcast in February put him or his ideas on the radar of many people and his twitter acct went from less than 40k to over 400k followers. He qualified for the debate stage earlier than most of the field, and the "paltry" 2% polling (a criterion for the later debate stages) beats many national politicians like Gillibrand etc. It should also be viewed in context with his still very low name recognition. 2% national polling when most Americans still don't even know you exist is remarkable. It means there is huge potential.
>I don't really know much about the guy, but he's not making much of a showing in the polls so I'm not surprised that networks aren't focusing on him.
I was blown away by the sheer amount of sense and rationality when I first heard him speak. It is so unlike a politician, and of course it should be because he isn't one. More than this almost, I was blown away by the responses of other people across the political spectrum. Specifically, it made me see that I had a completely wrong image of Trump voters. He seems exactly what America needs -- a uniter around ideas, not identities -- and I mean this as an outsider who wishes America well (but is deeply concerned about what you are doing to yourself). I really, really hope that more Americans will hear him out and listen with an open mind.
This was a targeted attack at one of the most interesting candidates this primary so far and it only serves to suppress a viable alternative to establishment candidates that are featured regularly on the network.
That's a pretty incredible claim, and requires some pretty serious proof if you expect anyone here to believe that. As a counterpoint, they give plenty of air time to a candidate who is literally running as an independent, who the party machine specifically, systematically disadvantaged last time. Why would they cut Yang if he got ratings?
I think the truth is more that news goes for what sells, and a candidate who hasn't yet proven they can sell ads is not worth covering by their metrics. See: the $2b+ plus free press Trump got. He was a known quantity no one expected to win, so covering that spectacle was easy and safe ad money.
It's also worth noting that while MSNBC is the 2nd or 3rd most watched network (depending on the month) there are only about 1.6 million people regularly watching and that number is down 14% year over year. So even if they snub your candidate, it may not matter much at all.
The polling failure came in the rust belt where the polling models were not tuned to turnout correctly. Turnoit model is the secret sauce of political polling and the most likely source of failure.
I was betting on the election and this proved an expensive failure for me. However, your notion of deliberately skewed polls by 'oversampling' Democratic areas is utter hogwash.
Would you please stop breaking the site guidelines so we don't have to ban you?
They were oversampling to get larger than necessary sub groups so that they could get statistically meaningful results of those subsamples.
As for your first comment swing state polling was more mixed. The RCP polling average gave Trump a lead in Florida. Which he won. It gave him a lead in Ohio which he won, it gave him a lead in Nevada, which he lost.
The polling failure was in the rust belt. Where similar demographics met similar flawed turnout model and result in identical polling failure across the States.
But the irony was the polling failure was over estimating Clinton support not under estimating Trump. Trump got less votes than Romney in Wisconsin yet still won because the Democrats vote collapsed spectacularly.
Edit, fixed AMP version.
Data shows that the American left shifted far leftward over the last 30 years, with the left edge going the furthest. The Republicans shifted leftward only a small amount. Here's Tim Pool covering the data:
Listen to Bill Clinton in the 90's basically laying down the Trump line on 'illegal aliens':
On what issues have the Republicans shifted to the right since, say, 1985?
I recently read that in 1970, Republicans still supported Basic Income.
The left today is a caricature of the left in the 60s and early 70s.
No it doesn't , using data from  and .
Maybe double check information you get from youtube pundits, especially those with an egregious agenda.
I mean, seriously?
Moreover, they ignored everything since 2012, when the social justice movement really gto going only in 2013 . Which means they're not even really addressing the meaningful recent leftward lurch. This is exactly the kind of obvious manipulation I'm talking about. Leaving out 7 years of data that are the core of the entire argument.
The Pew data, which is what Tim Pool was working from, and which comes from an extremely reputable source, stands strong and it reinforces what I've said.
The study was published in 2014, and it's not uncommon to have no finalized data for the year prior on all sources you want to aggregate. There is no grand conspiracy.
> The Pew data, which is what Tim Pool was working from, and which comes from an extremely reputable source, stands strong and it reinforces what I've said.
Again, no it doesn't. And how could it if it was published in 2014, going by your assertion?
Poole used congress voting records, and racism isn't the only (do I even need to state this?) conservative metric.
Regarding your link I don't know what you think it means. That terms and concepts that come into the discourse are discussed more? I'm not shocked.
If aliens invaded earth tomorrow and the local news decided to go with the story of someone's Aunt Mary who just won a cobbler bake-off for the third straight year, you'd be shouting "WTF" at your TV. But the subtler ones just go right past your filters.
At first it is often very annoying to confront yourself with the different viewpoints and opposite spin.
But you train yourself to read everything more critically, recognize how easy it is for your preferred media outlets to blur your "vision", and discover that the truth usually is somewhere in the middle.
Anything critical of the current administration is not left-leaning either. In the past, most of these organizations have been critical of the Obama administration, but they weren't considered right-leaning then.
"Our Media Bias Ratings represent the average judgment of Americans. They are based on blind surveys of people across the political spectrum, multi-partisan analysis and other in-depth analyses as well as tens of thousands of user ratings. Our scientifically-generated ratings are fluid and subject to change over time as new information is gathered and biases change.
Unless otherwise noted as editorial content, all bias ratings are based on online versions of news coverage, not TV, print, or radio content."
You can also see that they differentiate between fox's online news and opinion pieces, with the latter classified as being on the political Right.
Edit: I do think the separation of their opinion pieces from their regular news reporting is a little bit of a cop-out though.
Politically, Fox does not stay put. To maximize market share, they always want to be just barely to the right of their main competition. Since that competition has gone quite a bit left in recent years, Fox has followed. By some measurements Fox is now even slightly to the left of the average American. Fox will immediately move back to the right if the competition moves right, because Fox can't risk crossing over.
It's hard to imagine a mindset where you see media treatment of Obama as comparable to that of Trump. It's night and day in every possible respect. And the donation and poll numbers from these organizations, which are generally 90-95% Democratic-leaning, confirm that.
It's supposed to mean, would you treat blue-team or the red-team better for the same behavior?
> drone strikes
This was heavily covered. This was probably the number one thing that Obama was criticized for. I think most people agree that this is bad (for various reasons), though technically it is protecting American soldiers lives. Oddly, we don't hear much about the fact that Trump administration has relaxed rules and is performing more drone strikes .
> tear gas at the border
I also remember his immigration policies being heavily criticized. Yet, if you look at the policies of the current administration, they are objectively far worse. If the policies are far worse, it is consistent with a neutral position to be more critical of the current administration's policies than the previous administration's.
> gunwalker scandals
While they tried to pin Gunwalker on Obama, Gunwalker was really a Bush administration scandal that wasn't discovered until Obama . That was an attempted political hit during an election year, equivalent to Benghazi. Despite that, it was covered even by the crazy "leftist" CNN .
If Obama had been meeting secretly with the Kenyan government to gather dirt on his political opponents, defending them every chance he got when it was discovered that they spent significant effort to influence our elections, and trying to remove sanctions against them, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this would be heavily criticized and covered by both CNN and MSNBC. I do believe MSNBC leans left.
Google also rarely promotes Chinese and North Korean state-sponsored media sources as 'top news', or Marxist-Leninist publications, or the moral and political degenerates behind New Trotskyism, but for some reason, that analysis doesn't take issue with this lack of 'balanced reporting'. It's only upset that a very particular, very narrow political spectrum of ideas isn't getting 50/50 coverage.
 Isn't it obvious that we'd be better off without listening to them? /s
You don't even have to turn to foreign news for that. There's no shortage of diverse domestic ideas, that for some unfathomable reason aren't being promoted.
There can be more than one bad thing happening at once, and it's not necessary that everything address all of them.
Or is there not some objective standard for determining that?
I used that example because it's the only one I have on hand. That's the trouble with biased story choice - it takes a lot of work and statistical analysis to reveal.
I was on a military deployment overseas many years ago, and it was entertaining to see how events were reported back home. It was vary rare for any report to gain more than a parsing resemblance to what actually happened. In a lot of cases many separate events were confounded into a single report and in all cases the subtleties of the event were completely lost.
The result is that as you say you cannot take any reporting to be the actual facts of the situation. If you are interested in an event your only recourse is to investigate the event yourself. Talk to participants and observers and even then you have to examine their and your own biases to ensure that is taken into account when drawing your conclusions.
Facts are for Mathematics, and even then, that is an opinion.
I'm much, much more worried about people these days who say they don't "believe" in science than I am about subtle biases couched in seemingly credible articles, because more often than not people playing the "subtle bias"/"don't trust the mainstream media" card are actually trying to discount the value of science or peer review or expertise, far far more often than they're trying to highlight propaganda hidden in plain sight.
I don't think people should blindly trust much of anything or anyone. But I also think the attitude of "don't trust anything that comes from mainstream media, don't trust expertise, don't trust science" is a hell of a lot more destructive than "trust mainstream news organizations somewhat but not blindly, trust expertise but not blindly, trust science but not blindly, always consider the source, and try to be cognizant of your own and other people's biases".
Also, if someone is so intellectually challenged that they can only take binary, black and white positions on things like trusting mainstream media, trusting expertise, and trusting science, well, we'd all be a lot better off if they just erred on the side of less random bullshit and actually did blindly trust all of those institutions. Because otherwise they're just blindly trusting other people who've rejected all human knowledge and are just driven by emotions and imagined narratives. Blindly trusting the big evil establishment will result in them buying into some misinformation, sure, but they're not going to turn into anti-vaxxers or fascists or flat earthers or religious fundamentalists at least.
There's a term for this.
Scientific results and studies are indistinguishable from propoganda when used to sway/lead/inform the public. I'm not saying science is propoganda, I'm saying it becomes indistinguishable for those who aren't participating in performing the research or understanding the research methodologies.
We know that there are risks associated with vaccines. They are not "100% safe" as people have been led to believe (to suggest that anything is 100% safe is basically preposterous). Right now, pharmaceutical companies are being demonized for profiteering and getting massive numbers of people addicted to their drugs (the "legal" ones). We know that there is extreme bias and sometimes outright deceit from media outlets and especially governments. People are increasingly suspicious of all these "experts" telling them what to do because we know that these experts tell partial truths, at best.
So people are expected to overlook their distrust of drug companies, of governments and of media, all of which collectively trumpet the necessity of injecting babies with cocktails of stuff whose contents is unknown and/or not understood by the majority of people of the world. There's little in the way of elevated debate: each side just calls the other stupid. And somehow Alex Jones always comes up, as if he is the ultimate scapegoat for the "idiocy" of alternative viewpoints.
My point is that the issue is not black and white, like everyone wants it to be. It is extremely complex and we owe it to ourselves to listen to each other.
I gotta believe that starting with the basic stuff will be the first step to getting better at recognizing the less basic stuff.
The same techniques could potentially help people recognize the less basic stuff, teach them how to do it.
But I think an equal and opposite problem is that these days people don't believe "real" news as much as they believe "fake" news. They accuse anything that they don't like of being 'fake news' and refuse to believe it, no matter how extensively reported.
I really don't know what to do about that, but I still gotta think that developing basic 'news literacy' skills anywhere is the foundation for more advanced.
This is the endgame, and the reason fake news exists. There's no better way to destabilize a democracy than to cast doubt upon all journalism. Democracy depends on a well-informed populace, and if all information becomes subjective it cannot continue to function.
I think the solution is more independent journalism. I’m already seeing a lot of it on Twitter with independent researchers. These people have obvious biases but it’s clear, which makes these sources oddly more useful even if they’re openly partisan but independent.
Independent "journalists" are the ones causing a lot of the crisis of truth currently underway. Indie YouTube channels garner credibility by pushing an "alternative" viewpoint that invariably means "asserting that the news as covered by all mainstream sources is actually wrong, and that we are the only ones who can provide the Truth."
We need more sites and journalists working with the strict controls and regulations placed on those at WashPo, NYTimes, The Atlantic, New Yorker, etc., not less. I'm no fan of consolidation, but it cannot be argued that the core of mainstream jounralism is at fault for fake news. WashPo's ability to head off a scam story pushed by James O'Keefe is one of the best examples of why the MSM is specifically credible, and why indie journalism is far riskier.
If you see independent journalists as pushing an "alternative" view, then you have a reasonable argument: take your facts from the most credible source. But that's not what is happening. Independent journalists are reporting on stories that the mainstream news isn't touching. And they are often doing it with long-form video evidence which is not easy to fake, especially as it is published right after said events happen. Certainly independent journalists are biased and opinionated, many believing in crazy conspiracy theories, but I've never found their opinions or theories to be contageous, and the video evidence is still very valuable.
A good example of news wthout bias (which is so hard to find nowadays) is Steve Lookner's Agenda Free TV on YouTube. There is simply nothing political about it, and it stands in contrast to everything else. And as others have already pointed out, watching news from both sides of the political spectrum (as difficult as that is) is probably the best way to get at the truth.
Finally, while I think James O'Keefe has very questionable investigative methods, there was no scam story - he was using fake information to draw out a journalist so as to extract information from the journalist. There was no evidence he was intending to publish that fake information as a story and he flatly denies that accusation, and WaPo did a follow up correcting the record (good on them).
Some people are personally involved in a news event, and they read/watch about it and notice that the report is completely different from what happened, cause and effect are reversed, and the journalist is obviously pushing a narrative that was pre-decided before doing any research.
Other people read news articles and then look at a more primary source and notice that the news was completely wrong. This is easy to do with science articles. But it also happens with video news - I remember when CNN ran a clip of a black woman addressing a riot related to a police shooting. They labeled it as a call for peace. Go on YouTube, and see the next 20 seconds of the clip that they edited out, and she's calling for violence - she's calling for the black rioters to stop trashing their own neighborhood and instead 'take that shit to the suburbs' and trash white neighborhoods. CNN flatly lied and edited in the most blatant way.
Or perhaps you know someone like Jordan Peterson from his work, and then he makes an argument about pronoun usage, and suddenly he's on the news juxtaposed with a word cloud of 'Nazi', 'alt-right', 'sexist', all framed as a question, and designed to create the association below the level of conscious thought.
Others notice obvious selective reporting. E.g. BBC sings to the heavens a story about some Viking warriors found buried 1000 years ago, because scientists thought they were women, but they were buried with weapons. Oh, it demonstrates that women were warriors, hooray feminism! Not much later, the scientists check more closely (DNA or whatever) and realize the warriors were all men. There is no story about this, or absolutely minimal corrections. They didn't lie, they just selectively report.
Or you just look at the poll numbers and note that in all these organizations, the employees poll and donate to Democrates 90-100% of the time. Simple example: Google employees gave $1.3 million to Hillary, and zero dollars to Trump in 2016.
Or you just see the subtle conflation of concepts to create a false impression when you know better. "10 million native Americans were killed by genocide and disease..." When you know 95%+ of them were killed by the disease, you know whoever wrote this intended to create a false impression. It's "In WW2, 6 million Jews died of disease and chemical poisoning" level lying.
Eventually this happens over and over and it because overwhelmingly obvious that this is happening all the time. You can learn about so many things that ought to be reports but aren't, and see so many reports that are twisted in obvious ways.
So where do you go when it's incredibly obvious the mainstream are manipulating you - and are not owning up to their biases? You have no choice; you go find independent journalists with acknowledged biases and try to peice together the truth that way. The media forced you to do it.
Also, having worked in a newsroom myself, I can attest to the fact that the firewall between sales/business and the journalists is real and strong. Not perfect, but it does a hell of a job, and is much, much better than the wild west of financing currently in the indie reporting space.
Meanwhile the official OIG report investigated the relationship between our intelligence agencies and reporters. Here's something awful from that report:
> In addition, we identified instances where FBI
employees improperly received benefits from reporters,
including tickets to sporting events, golfing outings,
drinks and meals, and admittance to nonpublic social
Anyone with a critical mind can see that these things stink. They stink from a mile away.
Don't have time to list all the eye-poppingly blatant misconstruals I've seen in NYT.
Big recent one that comes to mind is the Covington Catholic story, where the reporters spent several days blaming the children, even though there were multi-hour videos of the whole event that refuted them available from the first day of the controversy.
This jumped out to me as a statistic so extreme that it couldn't possibly be true: Google has far too many employees to have literally zero dollars donated to the Trump campaign, no matter what you think of the corporate culture. Sure enough, the example is simple because it is false:
I didn't look up the Clinton donations under the same parameters, but I'm sure it's not even close to an even split. Regardless, it's simultaneously ironic and fitting for a comment on a post about disinformation to contain such an easily-falsified statement.
The "zero" statement seems to really be making the rounds, used by Ted Cruz in a hearing, by various media outlets making the case for regulating Google because of their bias... I guess "zero" is just punchier.
It's certainly possible Cruz was wrong or using an unfair interpretation. I feel safe saying that the donations would be skewed at least 90/10 and probably much more.
Perhaps your viewpoint relates to what you think the “big” risk are with fake news. If the biggest risks to you are antivaxers and flat earthers then I can see where you’re coming from with YouTube. If you think the biggest risks are those that jeopardize democracies then I think the big money goes into the MSM to shape our ideas and control the narrative.
It’s made especially dangerous because these MSM outlets are given the gravitas of independence even though the writers are biased, fallible people just like the rest of us. And these news outlets are a commercial enterprise who have owners who themselves have agendas. To pretend otherwise is foolish.
They say history is written by the winner.
When many things are broadly painted as good or evil then there is certainly propaganda involved.
And while problems like subtle framing are real and problematic, they are long standing and democracy has long been able to cope with them. They are no more effective now than they have been for centuries.
And they are insignificant compared to the recent effectiveness of blatant falsehood and fabrication. Often state sponsored.
I can recall this being a part of the news since I was a young child, and I'm in my mid 40s. It's certainly not a new phenomenon.
A good documentary about the topic is The Century of Self, a BBC doc about the inception of propaganda and marketing in the US.
Later "News" Article: "Foo, who has been associated with the alt-right, ..."
Later Opinion Piece: "Foo, who is an alt-right nazi, ..."
To gauge the effects of the game, players were asked to rate the reliability of a series of different headlines and tweets before and after gameplay. They were randomly allocated a mixture of real (“control”) and fake news (“treatment”).
The study, published today in the journal Palgrave Communications, showed the perceived reliability of fake news before playing the game had reduced by an average of 21% after completing it. Yet the game made no difference to how users ranked real news.
The researchers also found that those who registered as most susceptible to fake news headlines at the outset benefited most from the “inoculation”.
“We find that just fifteen minutes of gameplay has a moderate effect, but a practically meaningful one when scaled across thousands of people worldwide, if we think in terms of building societal resistance to fake news,” said van der Linden.
The original study can be found here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0279-9
At the beginning, I tried pretty hard to genuinely gauge reliability, and was more willing to use some nuance (maybe I don't think the tweet is written fairly, but it touches on a genuine trend, so I'll give it a 3/10). There was also one that I just let slip by me (HBO tweet with some random characters that I realized probably weren't intentional markers to dodge trademarks after I instinctively hit 10/10 reliability, and also you can't go back and correct yourself).
After the game I was just so worn out I didn't feel like giving any credence to anything. Looks like you're kinda emotional? 1/10. Talking about an opinion instead of a fact? 1/10. From a celebrity? 1/10. It also looked like they weren't throwing in many or any tweets that were supposed to be "credible" or "reliable" in the feed.
I'd be interested in seeing the results 2 or 3 weeks out, and with a more even mix of "credible" and "non-credible" tweets. I have the suspicion the results won't stick, or at least won't stick well.
>For the question about discrediting we used a different non-existent news site (“International Post Online”), employing an ad hominem (Walton, 1998) argument against the mainstream media: The Mainstream Media has been caught in so many lies that it can’t be trusted as a reliable news source. #FakeNews.
This is not news. This is an opinion. Since when does expressing low opinion of the mainstream media counts as spreading fake news?
(note: no reason to believe THIS post is phishing, just funny to see the same url)
glances at URL
"Not this time..."
Imagine a society where everyone has a stronger resistance to disinformation. It seems like it could only be a good thing.
Information leading people to, say, shoot up synagogues or churches in a misplaced struggle against that fact based reality is likely disinformation.
But my view is a lot more based on pragmatism than most.
I think there is a continuous pressure for negligent behavior that heavily outweighs any good attempts to educate people of privacy, finance, health, news, and many other categories. :(
And also, will fake news mutate in order to overcome the learned defenses, similar to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Actually, I would say we're already well past that point, there's plenty of propaganda that intelligent people are completely oblivious to, some of it is harmful, but much of it is beneficial.
1. Headliner: https://store.steampowered.com/app/680980/HEADLINER/
2. Headliner: NoviNews https://store.steampowered.com/app/918820/Headliner_NoviNews...
There is also one by Nicky Case that I've played too:
We Become What We Behold - https://ncase.itch.io/wbwwb
I recommend them all.
But, I have a general criticism about this area of research, which seems to conflate the semantic truth. value of content with the content itself, for example in statements like "fake news spreads faster" (veracity is an extrinsic property of data, and not one that is cognitively accessible to its consumers, and so can have no causal role in it's dissemination). Instead, the relevant variables can only be things like: sensationalism, accords with priors, emotional response, etc.
Still, when it
"A lie will go around the world before the truth has got it's boots on."
-Mark Twain, 1919
He said that way before "fake news". How did he recognize this?
He saw that it's trivial to make a lie people want to tell, and that truth is by comparison less often compelling.
This seems so obvious, but it's so little known. At this point when I read a story online that makes me want to tell somebody else, where I feel "why doesn't everybody know about this", I start fact-checking.
That's all accuracy takes. Just that little bit of skepticism. For example, that Mark Twain quote I gave is total bull. Twain died in 1910 and the quote is actually a distorted version of this:
"Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it;" -Johnathan Swift, 1787
Why do I know this? Am I that conversant in satirical literature?
Nope. The shape of my desire to include that well-known misquotation in my reply signaled me that it might not be real. I'm not kidding. It was too much fun.
So I looked it up, saw the irony, and left the misquotation in to make a point.
That's the force we have to fight. Anything that feels Snopesish is suspicious.
Is it true that Obama was doing the same thing to asylum-seekers that Trump is? No. Is it true that Trump started the whole asylum detention program because he hates immigrants? No.
Is it true that the asylum program has a decades-long and complicated history, that the current administration has focused attention on the border to deflect from a dozen other issues its facing, thereby highlighting the detention program, and that a series of inhumane missteps have been made in managing that program, demonstrably causing a new level of suffering, because the people currently in charge tend to view that suffering as a form of justice for what they believe is a threatening criminal act?
Yeah. That's mostly true. It's also not very much fun to say.
The larger issue today is arguably suppressed information, which leads people when they find it to jump to conclusions based on lack of contextual data. Ass in 'official' versions of events that don't make sense and you are feeding a wildfire of paranoia
It helps to play it to understand what they are trying to accomplish.
How about get opinion/news from a wide variety of sources ( mainstream and fringe, big and small, national and international, right and left, globalist and nationalist, etc )? That's the only reliable way to wade through all the disinformation.
Especially regarding controversial, cultural, military, trade and geopolitical issues.
If you are getting your "news" from one source then you are getting propaganda and lies. How many wars have we been sold on lies by the media? And yet, we are expected to trust them regardless of their lies. And that's just the most glaring and obvious example.
For example, with the recent hong kong protests. It would have been nice to see what the chinese media or asian media were also saying about the issue. I suspect it's a lot different than the "news" we've been seeing about it in the US. If we are interested in the "truth", then it would be nice to see what iranians/iranian media and the media of nearby countries are saying. Rather than just a one sided pro-war "news".
But I suspect that neither cambridge nor the media they are protecting truly care about "news, disinformation, fake news, etc".
1. that all news sources are equally biased;
2. that aggregating those biases produces an unbiased result.
Neither of these assumptions are credible.
2. I didn't say the "aggregates" produce an unbiased result. I didn't mention anything about "aggregates". Seeing different opinions exposes to you the biases of every news source. If you just watch foxnews or cnn all day, you won't be able to pick up on the bias. But if you watch both, the biases of both become blatantly obvious. I'm not saying watching both somehow magically makes CNN or Foxnews "objective" and "honest". Quite the opposite.
3. Neither of those assumptions are credible because I didn't make them. You made those assumptions in an attempt to defend mainstream media. Which I see all over social media recently.
Every comment about being skeptical about media ( especially mainstream media ) gets met with your type of comment. Makes me wonder.
Pulitzer Prize winning news source: Clinton does not run a child abuse ring.
How does ignoring Infowars because it is intentionally lying make me less informed?
>Every comment about being skeptical about media ( especially mainstream media ) gets met with your type of comment. Makes me wonder.
Our conspiracy has been exposed! Back to Moscow comrades!
Pulitzer Prize winning news source : Nayirah, Yellow cake, assad syria chemical attack, Trump working for Putin conspiracy.
But then again, Pulitzer was the founder of yellow journalism, the original fake news.
I don't think winning an award named after the founder of yellow journalism is anything to be proud of.
"Back to Moscow comrades"?
That sounds like the fake news we've been hearing from many pulitzer winners.
The difference between infowars fake news and pulitzer winners fake news is that the pulitzer winners' fake news has resulted in the death of millions of people and the pulitzer winners should be facing war crime charges.
And Nayirah was invited by congress to lie in those chambers in order to give Bush justification for his war. None of those parties are news papers. In fact it was the press that ultimately exposed those lies, not a guy in his basement on youtube.
By yellow cake, I assume you are referring to the article that _exposed_ Bush's lie about WMD in Iraq coming from Africa. The article that resulted in white house retaliation threatening the life of Valerie Plame.
In addition, there were a series of op-eds _opposing_ the war by Joseph C. Wilson and others. The only degree to which real journalism is guilty is the degree to which it gullibly repeated what the whitehouse said. I believe we are all aware now that the whitehouse lies profusely.
And indeed, the respectable papers report the Trump organization's meetings and deals with Russia. If this data looks like an accusation to you, I have to agree that evidence is quite damning.
So here is a counter proposal: The far right is trying to discredit and ultimately crush the free press and academia as always. One of the tools is a re-write of history so that somehow those institutions that opposed war are now blamed for it. And the hawkish right who actually did start the war is falsely portrayed as opposing it.
I've been noticing more frequent references to WMDs lately, which is meant to imply that people who follow the mainstream media are being duped again. The issue with this narrative is that they weren't really duped the first time. Iraq was the most widely protested war internationally in modern history. The whole comparison between modern news events and WMDs is just grasping at straws.
>I didn't say the "aggregates" produce an unbiased result.
This is correct. I didn't quote you. I'm saying that in order for your conclusion to hold, the above assumptions must be true, which they're not. Whether or not you stated the assumptions is irrelevant.
>Seeing different opinions exposes to you the biases of every news source. If you just watch foxnews or cnn all day, you won't be able to pick up on the bias. But if you watch both, the biases of both become blatantly obvious.
There is zero reason to believe that watching one source will accurately expose the bias in another source, rather than simply contradict it. What I mean is that watching multiple news sources will not necessarily help you distinguish fact from bias.
To give an example, if news A presents a factual statement, and news B presents a lie that contradicts A, you are no better off by watching both news sources.
My statement has exactly nothing to do with "mainstream media." I'm just addressing the fallacy stated above.
> To give an example, if news A presents a factual statement, and news B presents a lie that contradicts A, you are no better off by watching both news sources.
Actually you are better off since you can then verify the "factual statement".
You are assuming "news A" is pushing "factual statements". That is itself a logical fallacy. I'll let you furiously google a list of logical fallacies to find out which.
You aren't addressing any "fallacy" because you built up false assumptions and are now arguing against your incorrect assumptions. That is also another logical fallacy.
You have a very "journalist" way of thinking. Illogical, agenda driven and misleading.
I don't think this is true, though. You may be able to see differences between them, but without access to the "ground truth" (whatever that might be) you can't tell how each source differs from the ground truth.
It's interesting to play through, and they've created other tools such as Twitter bot detectors to help curb disinformation: https://osome.iuni.iu.edu/tools/
Or is the site hugged to death?
"502 Request Error The page you requested generated a server error and could not be processed."
Effectively it is an attempt to co-opt the concept of propaganda but with the supposed idea that there is a certain authoritative group that will tell you what's real and always presents just the facts in an impartial way.
It's quite amazing. What they have done is to create an enthusiasm for censorship. The net effect is actually the opposite of what it is advertised to be. It enforces top-down information control.
In a similar vein, Libra is advertised as a real cryptocurrency that can act as a digital cash. And yet it is actually an attempt to replace real cryptocurrencies with something that can be controlled, easily tracked, and profited from by the companies it was designed to disintermediate.
The study, published today in the journal Palgrave Communications, showed the perceived reliability of real-life fanfic before playing the game had reduced by an average of 21% after completing it. Yet the game made no difference to how users ranked real news.
> the perceived reliability of fake news before playing the game had reduced by an average of 21% after completing it. Yet the game made no difference to how users ranked real news.
The other popular response seems to be "the article and game are bogus". Not sure how the two are reconciled of course.
Analogous to how you can't do defensive IT security unless you understand how people do offensive.
I was pretty disappointed the game was "you'll lose if you do the stupid thing!!11!". Bots are not that good and are rather visible as bullshit.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20286990 and marked it off-topic.
Watch an hour of prime-time CNN and prime-time Fox News, and it's obvious that Fox is more willing to stretch the truth, mislead watchers, and spread FUD.
I believe that trend holds for conservatism in general.
Is your defense of Fox News “nobody else is perfect, so why should anyone be held to any standard”?
Clarity in the majors is pretty low right now.
Transparency in bias.
Bias is not really getting an honest discussion on the major networks right now. It should. And the moment it does, there are issues to work through. Some of those may be costly to the majors too.
On some topics, and I have a random list here, bias gets in the way, and the only real discussion is side discussion like ours happening right now:
War (framing in terms of it being generally good, necessary)
Economics (No labor point of view)
Media / Internet (Neutrality, impact of massive consolidation, access journalism...)
In any case, just know I was not intending to make any negative statements your way. Just asked the question to provoke some discussion, nothing more.
The major media companies are all doing a terrible job. Being better than FOX is a very low bar.
I am saying that inequality does not matter all that much on a growing number of issues.
This is not normal. Previous presidents, regardless of political party, did not engage in this behavior.
It looks like this is in fact normal. It's understandable too, since connected people with an understanding of media and politics are obviously of value.
It offers the player the option to tweet "The Mainstream media is one massive conspiracy". It punishes the player if they choose options not in line with ethical journalistic behavior (as defined by the game). So, things like questioning the events of 9/11, vaccines, and other taboo subjects affect your score.
questions were framed as tweets from legitimate news organizations that did not include any attempts at misleading the audience.
It will be interesting to see what the data coming from this research and what Google's response will be to this week's Google employee insider reporting that Google controls online narratives.
Something is tampering with news data. Is it the lonely people in their basements (by the tens of thousands), a conspiracy, or machine Learning?
That statement is incredibly condescending.