How Fake News Goes Viral

[SR1419]

By Itself it's not news

its propaganda.

 

[Greylandra]

its propaganda.

Yes it is. That word is derived from the latin propagate. Its only in modern times we attached a negative stigma to it.

 

[deirdre]

Yes it is. That word is derived from the latin propagate. Its only in modern times we attached a negative stigma to it.

i guess that depends on what religion you were back in the 1600s when the Church started using it with it's new 'agenda' meaning.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/454039?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

 

[JRBids]

that demonization is responsible for people not trusting MSM.

Demonization of the MSM is prevalent in the CT community, though. Post ANY source that is not a CT source, any news station, the WP, metabunk, snopes, anything.... it's discounted. A commen taunt from CTs is "you believe everything the MSM spoon feeds you?" or similar. I think Critical Thinker is right.

 

[Greylandra]

i guess that depends on what religion you were back in the 1600s when the Church started using it with it's new 'agenda' meaning.

View attachment 23450

https://www.jstor.org/stable/454039?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

That's true, but lets keep the context of "church and state" durring the 1600's in mind as well as the lack of widespread information at the time. From the perspective of the western establishment or "Christendom" ,at that time, propaganda was a useful tool towards the furtherance of an "orthodox" agenda... Now that this tool is in the hands of anyone with an opinion; it has become a hiss and a byword. Not surprisingly. One persons "fake news"/propaganda is anothers entertainment/information. Same as it always was. The important bit is what information is going viral and what is being ignored and why.

 

[Pete Tar]

Demonization of the MSM is prevalent in the CT community, though. Post ANY source that is not a CT source, any news station, the WP, metabunk, snopes, anything.... it's discounted. A commen taunt from CTs is "you believe everything the MSM spoon feeds you?" or similar. I think Critical Thinker is right.

Don't forget to invoke the sinister hand of George Soros.

 

[JRBids]

Don't forget to invoke the sinister hand of George Soros.

Or the Koch brothers! They've got all sides covered.

 

[Hama Neggs]

Viral is a relative term. Stories such as chemtrails have gone "viral" to an extent, it just took a decade or so and really started with an appearance on the old Art Bell Show. Why? It's the same sort of thing as mentioned above. It's sort of a 'rebellion' thing, I think, and people wanting to feel as if they have made a grande discovery and that it means they are smarter than the average person and have inside information.

 

[deirdre]

From the perspective of the western establishment or "Christendom" ,at that time, propaganda was a useful tool towards the furtherance of an "orthodox" agenda

silly. obviously the people spreading the propaganda always thinks it's good. otherwise what would be the point of spreading it

 

[tadaaa]

isn't one of the simple answers "clickbait" and the need for websites to get ad revenue

so in a sense even some of the MSM are responsible - in part

I have been on pretty main stream i.e. reputable websites, and the banner ads at the bottom have the

"you'll never believe what happened next"

you are then usually just a click away from viral news sites

 

[Mick West]

isn't one of the simple answers "clickbait" and the need for websites to get ad revenue

so in a sense even some of the MSM are responsible - in part

I have been on pretty main stream i.e. reputable websites, and the banner ads at the bottom have the

"you'll never believe what happened next"

you are then usually just a click away from viral news sites

Well yes, news that goes viral is quite often going viral because that was the intent. Regular news has headlines that are designed to make people want to read the story. There's a continuum of just how accurate the headlines are, but the "fake news" sites have basically arrived at a point where they are maximizing clicks, regardless of facts.

The thing is, fake news that is entirely fake has a limited audience. Even disclose.tv has a some facts in there. The best viral fake stories have verifiable facts, but just tweak their meaning. For example, from the OP:

Here the facts are that there were anti-trump protests in Austin, and those busses were there. However the fake part was the claim the protestors came in on busses. But it seems like a real story, as you can't quickly prove they were not, and many people are predisposed to believe the broader "paid protestors" narrative, so they like and share.

Fake news is basically evolving. The best practices in fake news survive, and it gets better and better at going viral.

 

[deirdre]

isn't one of the simple answers "clickbait" and the need for websites to get ad revenue

agreed.

and how people get their news would play a part. For example i get most of my AP news (originally then i searched more for specific stories) right off of Yahoo News because it's just convenient ie on my 'homepage'. They now have the fake articles, ads and clickbait right IN the real article list ... some of them are pretty hard to resist clicking.

 

[Mick West]

"demonization of the MSM" discussion split to:
https://www.metabunk.org/reasons-for-the-decline-in-trust-of-mainstream-media.t8253/

 

[tadaaa]

. The best viral fake stories have verifiable facts, but just tweak their meaning. For example, from the OP:

.

the above is also true of conspiracy theories too, often a "fact" with a completely erroneous narrative wrapped around it

"The WT7 fell straight down" springs to mind

what certainly is true is that the relevance and need for sites like this one have gone mainstream

the BBC radio ran yet another Russia/Putin/fake news story with respect to the UK Brexit vote etc this morning


certainly wiped the smirk of my wifes face when she asks what I am doing on the internet/computer

 

[SR1419]

Here is another example of "fake news"- this time purposefully propagated for profit supposedly. Very enlightening.

"I had a theory when I sat down to write it," recalled Harris, a 23-year-old former college quarterback and fraternity leader. "Given the severe distrust of the media among Trump supporters, anything that parroted Trump's talking points people would click. Trump was saying 'rigged election, rigged election.' People were predisposed to believe Hillary Clinton could not win except by cheating.".....

...He pushed the button and the story was launched on Sept. 30, blazing across the web like some kind of counterfeit comet. "Even before I posted it, I knew it would take off," Harris recalled.

He was correct. The ballot box story, promoted by a half-dozen Facebook pages Harris had created for the purpose, flew around the web, fueled by indignant comments from people who were certain that Clinton was going to cheat Trump of victory and who welcomed the proof. It was eventually shared with 6 million people, according to CrowdTangle, which tracks web audiences.

http://www.startribune.com/he-creat...-nation-now-he-tells-why-he-did-it/411094425/

 

[Critical Thinker]

On a lighter note.... In the ongoing war effort against fake News:




NY Times article

"We discuss the stories, and if an editor says, 'Can we disprove this? Is this a lie?' then, yes, we can use it," Ms. Gontar said of the editorial process. "It is investigative journalism, with a twist."

The journalism department at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy oversees the program and provides the basement television studio where, once a week, all the lies are gathered in one place.

"StopFake News" is no Onion-style satire, but rather positions itself as serious public service journalism, identifying fake news and debunking it on the air. That is because Kiev, with its running battle with Moscow, was plagued by fake news long before concern over the problem spiked in Western Europe and the United States.

During the Ukraine crisis in 2014, manipulative and often outright invented news poured in from Russia on satellite television and websites and into sympathetic local newspapers.

StopFake, which is also the name of the organization that founded the newscast, began its work nearly three years before a report by American intelligence agencies into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election in the United States. And it predated by a year the European Union's establishment of a department to identify and call out fake news plants from Russia. Facebook has recently hired fact checkers in the United States and Germany to flag false reports, not all of them Russian in origin.

Russia, though, has been such a fountain of fake news inside Ukraine that debunking factual errors in Russian propaganda became the specialty of StopFake.

Ukraine has become a testing ground "for a lot of Russia's evil strategies," Oksana Syroyid, a deputy speaker of Ukraine's Parliament, said in an interview. "Unfortunately, we have to put up with this. Ukraine's experience can be used by Europe and America to understand the real Russian threat."

Here, as elsewhere, emotionally hued fake news can become lethally serious. Reporters at "StopFake News" pointed to the armed man who entered the Washington restaurant Comet Ping-Pong Pizza, apparently motivated by false reports that the pizzeria was a den of pedophilia frequented by Democrats.

Lest something true accidentally slips into the program's report and damages the group's credibility, a crack team of editors and fact checkers combs through all potential stories.

 

[Critical Thinker]

A pet peeve of mine has been the lack of Critical Thinking skills being taught in American grade schools, and that omission has in part contributed to people falling for fake News stories from dubious sources that have a serious credibility issue. I was pleased to read this article on CNN:

Reading, writing, fighting fake news: How schools are teaching kids to separate fact from fiction

"There's so much fake news out there, they really don't know what's true anymore," Gerard says.
That's why educators like her around the world have launched programs to help students navigate this bewildering media landscape.
In the Czech Republic, high schools teach teens to identify propaganda from Russia.
In Sweden, students as young as 10 are schooled on how to consume news.
And in Pennsylvania, a state lawmaker wants mandatory media literacy classes in all public schools.
"The sophistication in how this false information is disguised and spread can make it very difficult for someone, particularly young people, to determine fact from fiction," says Rep. Tim Briggs.

Fake news and kids
Kids are web savvy. But that doesn't necessarily mean they're media savvy.
A survey by Common Sense Media, released earlier this month, really brought home that point.
In it, 44% of tweens and teens said they can tell the difference between fake news stories and real ones. But more than 30% admitted they shared a news story online -- only to find out later that it was wrong or inaccurate.

One of them is a course created by the nonprofit, the News Literacy Project that teachers from California to Virginia are adding to their classrooms. It includes a 10-question checklist for identifying fake news.
Some of the red flags are easy to spot.
Is the story missing a byline? Is the headline in ALL CAPS? Is there excessive punctuation? Are they promising you something "the media" doesn't want you to know?
Some take a little more thought.
Who published it? Is the tone a little sensational? Is the content genuinely trying to inform you, or just trying to get you to see ads?

Patricia Hunt, who teaches government at a high school in Arlington, Virginia, say her students were already learning how to evaluate sources academically. So doing the same for news sources was a natural next step.
"Question what you hear. Question authority," she tells them. "Question the perspective. Question the sources."

"I normally know the difference between propaganda and news," says Andrew Boyacigiller, a seventh grader. But he says the class has helped him discern between credible news outlets and ones that are just trying to match ads with eyeballs.

 

[Hama Neggs]

Part of the problem is that "credible" news sources are using more and more sensationalist techniques to grab eyeballs too. They are frantic over loosing their share of attention.

 

[MikeG]

Part of the problem is that "credible" news sources are using more and more sensationalist techniques to grab eyeballs too. They are frantic over loosing their share of attention.

I totally agree. I always show Edward R. Murrow in class and point out the lack of fancy graphics and theme music. Murrow read copy and let the words speak for themselves


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YOIueFbG4g


btw, The McCarthy Years is a great documentary for anyone interested.

http://www.docurama.com/docurama/mccarthy-years-the/

 

[Leifer]

A recent California Bill by Chau, AB 1104, 'fake news law' was pulled, but it specified,

It is unlawful for a person to knowingly and willingly make, publish or circulate on an Internet Web site, or cause to be made, published, or circulated in any writing posted on an Internet Web site, a false or deceptive statement designed to influence the vote on either of the following:
(a) Any issue submitted to voters at an election.
(b) Any candidate for election to public office.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/...ake-news-would-be-disastrous-political-speech

Of interest......one website quoted similar historical attempts, to the now defunct Bill....(according to the below site)
http://calcorporatelaw.com/2017/04/...ng-new-england-colonists-outlawing-fake-news/

 

[Apple]

A recent California Bill by Chau, AB 1104, 'fake news law' was pulled, but it specified,

It is unlawful for a person to knowingly and willingly make, publish or circulate on an Internet Web site, or cause to be made, published, or circulated in any writing posted on an Internet Web site, a false or deceptive statement designed to influence the vote on either of the following:
(a) Any issue submitted to voters at an election.
(b) Any candidate for election to public office.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/...ake-news-would-be-disastrous-political-speech

Of interest......one website quoted similar historical attempts, to the now defunct Bill....(according to the below site)
http://calcorporatelaw.com/2017/04/...ng-new-england-colonists-outlawing-fake-news/

Maybe I am cynical but both Republican and Liberal Media Organizations are know for making fake news every so often so I doubt their will ever be enough support in the USA for any kind of bill to pass at a state or federal level as neither stand to gain anything from a bill that would be difficult to pass other than maybe the liberals with fake news appearing more commonly in Republican political groups like the Tea Party (do they even exist anymore?) and Trump's Group.

When it comes to responding to fake news. The best response IMO would be the development of strictly non partisan fact checkers. As this will allow those who believe they can't trust current fact checkers due to their biased for either of the parties. With the main claim being the fact checkers like Snopes for example has a liberal bias and "enter in here other fact checker here".

Such laws could also harm satire like the The Onion as "a false or deceptive statement designed to influence the vote" could be be used to claim that the The Onion fit the bill based on their production of false statements and with weaselly nonsense you might be able to win in court that their intent was to influence voters.

 

[NoParty]

...Republican and Liberal Media Organizations are know for making fake news...

...claim being the fact checkers like Snopes for example has a liberal bias....

Hi.
Welcome.
Could you give examples of what you mean in the first passage? I'm kinda clueless both on what
"organizations" you're talking about, and what kind of "fake news" you mean.

As to Snopes, I think that one's easy: I discussed with Barbara Mikkelson (maybe 15 years ago?)
the reasons why Snopes is always dealing so many more claims from the right than the left,
and it seems obvious to me that Snopes shooting down most of the fun "Did Obama cuss out a soldier?"
etc., stories is why the "Well, you know Snopes is liberal shills, don't you?" talking point had to be created.


p.s. I nominate "viral" for most overused word in cyberspace.

 

[Apple]

Hi.
Welcome.
Could you give examples of what you mean in the first passage? I'm kinda clueless both on what
"organizations" you're talking about, and what kind of "fake news" you mean.

As to Snopes, I think that one's easy: I discussed with Barbara Mikkelson (maybe 15 years ago?)
the reasons why Snopes is always dealing so many more claims from the right than the left,
and it seems obvious to me that Snopes shooting down most of the fun "Did Obama cuss out a soldier?"
etc., stories is why the "Well, you know Snopes is liberal shills, don't you?" talking point had to be created.


p.s. I nominate "viral" for most overused word in cyberspace.

When I refer to Media Organizations I mean Media Organization like CNN and Fox News. Both are known for pushing narratives for their respective side and caught lying and distorting fact in the past. With both Fox News and CNN making news pieces that border on and sometimes fit the definition of fake news in the meaning of a story with fake facts used to push a narrative.

For example in CNN's case take the coverage of the 2016 American Election and the follow up. Take their "No, the presidential election can't be hacked"[2] vs. their "Where's the outrage over Russia's hack of the US election?"[3].

Where they try to prepare the defense for the victory of Hillary Clinton but their defense works against their narrative of Russian hacking the elections so they just ignore the first piece and create a clear contradiction in the first said it's impossible for an outside group to influence the election outcome, while the other piece said we should be angry that an outside group influenced the election outcome.

No, the presidential election can't be hacked - Article

The public is understandably concerned about the integrity of next month's election. [2]

But election officials and cyber experts say it's virtually impossible for Moscow or some other outside group to influence the election outcome. [2]

Where's the outrage over Russia's hack of the US election? - Article

But that's not what we got. Confronted with an attack by a hostile foreign power on our most critical institutions, Republicans decided that Russian hacking was OK, as long as it was against Democrats -- indeed, as Wikileaks strategically released the hacked emails over a period of weeks for maximum political impact, Republicans celebrated. [3]

CNN has been caught lying in non political matters as well.

Take the St. Mary's Medical Center case where CNN claimed that the hospital had an mortality rate that was 3 times higher than the national average. With the court case still outstanding but the fact that their statement was a lie a clear cut fact as no data supports this statement.[1]

"According to the documents CNN obtained from the state, from 2011 to 2013, St. Mary's Medical Center performed 48 open heart surgeries on children and babies. Independently, CNN determined that six infants died, and confirmed the deaths with parents of all six children. From those numbers, CNN was able to calculate the death rate for open heart surgeries as 12.5%, more than three times the national average of 3.3% cited by the Society for Thoracic Surgeons."[4]

"Davide Carbone, former CEO of St. Mary's Medical Center in West Palm Beach, filed a defamation lawsuit against CNN after they aired what he claims were a "series of false and defamatory news reports"[1]

"On Wednesday, Federal District Judge Orinda Evans ruled that the case could move forward, even ruling that she found that CNN may have acted with "actual malice" with the report — a standard necessary to prove a defamation claim."[1]


I use to believe that Snopes were shills to be honest but after reading debunks/articles they publish. They seem to be fine with Snopes responding to both claims that befit both sides. Regardless the more the merry IMO as Snopes can only handle so much work flow and the amount of claims and news after the 2016 election is insane.

As I would not be surprised if the news out pore was equal to or exceeded 911. Making it rather hard for experts let alone people trying to be skeptical to keep up.



[1] - http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/ho...ruling-after-accusing-cnn-of-false-reporting/

[2] - http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/election-day-russia-hacking-explained/index.html\

[3] - http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/10/opini...sia-hack-americas-election-waldman/index.html

[4] - http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/health/st-marys-medical-center/index.html

 

[Hama Neggs]

A recent California Bill by Chau, AB 1104, 'fake news law' was pulled, but it specified,

It is unlawful for a person to knowingly and willingly make, publish or circulate on an Internet Web site, or cause to be made, published, or circulated in any writing posted on an Internet Web site, a false or deceptive statement designed to influence the vote on either of the following:
(a) Any issue submitted to voters at an election.
(b) Any candidate for election to public office.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/...ake-news-would-be-disastrous-political-speech

Of interest......one website quoted similar historical attempts, to the now defunct Bill....(according to the below site)
http://calcorporatelaw.com/2017/04/...ng-new-england-colonists-outlawing-fake-news/

It would be political insanity to pass any such law and have the government involved in policing such things.

 

[NoParty]

When I refer to Media Organizations I mean Media Organization like CNN and Fox News. Both are known for pushing narratives for their respective side and caught lying and distorting fact in the past. With both Fox News and CNN making news pieces that border on and sometimes fit the definition of fake news in the meaning of a story with fake facts used to push a narrative.

For example in CNN's case take the coverage of the 2016 American Election and the follow up. Take their "No, the presidential election can't be hacked"[2] vs. their "Where's the outrage over Russia's hack of the US election?"[3].

Where they try to prepare the defense for the victory of Hillary Clinton but their defense works against their narrative of Russian hacking the elections so they just ignore the first piece and create a clear contradiction in the first said it's impossible for an outside group to influence the election outcome, while the other piece said we should be angry that an outside group influenced the election outcome.

No, the presidential election can't be hacked - Article

The public is understandably concerned about the integrity of next month's election. [2]

But election officials and cyber experts say it's virtually impossible for Moscow or some other outside group to influence the election outcome. [2]

Where's the outrage over Russia's hack of the US election? - Article

But that's not what we got. Confronted with an attack by a hostile foreign power on our most critical institutions, Republicans decided that Russian hacking was OK, as long as it was against Democrats -- indeed, as Wikileaks strategically released the hacked emails over a period of weeks for maximum political impact, Republicans celebrated. [3]

CNN has been caught lying in non political matters as well.

Take the St. Mary's Medical Center case where CNN claimed that the hospital had an mortality rate that was 3 times higher than the national average. With the court case still outstanding but the fact that their statement was a lie a clear cut fact as no data supports this statement.[1]

"According to the documents CNN obtained from the state, from 2011 to 2013, St. Mary's Medical Center performed 48 open heart surgeries on children and babies. Independently, CNN determined that six infants died, and confirmed the deaths with parents of all six children. From those numbers, CNN was able to calculate the death rate for open heart surgeries as 12.5%, more than three times the national average of 3.3% cited by the Society for Thoracic Surgeons."[4]

"Davide Carbone, former CEO of St. Mary's Medical Center in West Palm Beach, filed a defamation lawsuit against CNN after they aired what he claims were a "series of false and defamatory news reports"[1]

"On Wednesday, Federal District Judge Orinda Evans ruled that the case could move forward, even ruling that she found that CNN may have acted with "actual malice" with the report — a standard necessary to prove a defamation claim."[1]


I use to believe that Snopes were shills to be honest but after reading debunks/articles they publish. They seem to be fine with Snopes responding to both claims that befit both sides. Regardless the more the merry IMO as Snopes can only handle so much work flow and the amount of claims and news after the 2016 election is insane.

As I would not be surprised if the news out pore was equal to or exceeded 911. Making it rather hard for experts let alone people trying to be skeptical to keep up.



[1] - http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/ho...ruling-after-accusing-cnn-of-false-reporting/

[2] - http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/election-day-russia-hacking-explained/index.html\

[3] - http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/10/opini...sia-hack-americas-election-waldman/index.html

[4] - http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/health/st-marys-medical-center/index.html

Thank you. That's a lot of stuff.
My first question would be about lumping CNN & Fox. The former was set up to make money.
The latter was set up to advance a political position...to the degree that Murdoch took the extraordinary
step of actually paying carriers to carry the channel. Murdoch & Roger Ailes felt strongly that the media
wasn't telling the conservative side of the story enough, so they would. And for two decades, they've been 100% faithful
to the mission: No Republican presidential candidate has had to worry that Fox wouldn't be openly promoting them.
A Cheney or Trump can always find safe haven on Fox, when they don't want to expose themselves to tough questions.
I realize that some Republicans feel CNN is like Fox (but on the other foot), but one simply can't support that view
with facts. And I'm no fan of CNN...but it's origin, reason to exist and track record are nothing like Fox's.

I'm not clear on your point on the Russia hacking (for one thing, your link #2 doesn't work)...
but it seems like you're talking about two different issues: Could Russia literally hack the election:
change electronic vote totals? (Answer: Probably not) vs. could Russia affect the outcome of the election by
releasing illegally obtained info, designed to hurt one candidate, to help the other win (Answer: Almost certainly).

Why in the world--other than traditional hyping of the news--would CNN have motive to harm a particular hospital?
I thought you were going to suggest a political bias (?)
Even still, if this really is a significant problem, why couldn't you cite a single example?
I know, you mentioned St. Mary's Medical Center, but that's currently an open file with no wrongdoing
determined. A judge merely said that a suit could proceed. All that means is that the hospital's complaint
is not so absurd as to deny them the right to try to sue. If CNN has a bad pattern, surely you can illustrate
it with multiple resolved cases that shows them lying, right? They've covered thousands and thousands of stories.

And, just curious, why did you "use to believe that Snopes were shills"?

I went on longer than I wanted, but you took some time to meet my request, so I figured I owed you the same.

 

[tinkertailor]

A pet peeve of mine has been the lack of Critical Thinking skills being taught in American grade schools

(late in responding, sorry)
One of the biggest differences for me between high school and college was and is the way students were taught about sources for essays and the like. In high school, we spent ten times more time being taught the way to do proper MLA format (to cite our sources) than we did actually being taught what a reasonable source was. The time that we DID spend on learning what a good source was and what a bad source was was literally just one piece of advice: WIKIPEDIA IS BAD, ANYONE CAN EDIT IT, DON'T USE IT, IT'S SO UNRELIABLE, IF YOU CITE WIKIPEDIA I WILL AUTOMATICALLY FAIL YOU.
In college, it's been the opposite. My professors have told the class that so long as you get the citation done correctly and in the proper format asked, you don't need to worry about whether you know how exactly to create a citation from memory. So now, when I write an essay or an article review or a research paper, I use a citation generator online. Also, I've barely ever even used MLA in college. Four years of information being drilled into my brain were a waste. And Wikipedia is a great starting point and a reference for further research. I LOVE Wikipedia. I use it all the time, for any sort of research I do. I just check. It isn't great, but it's still worthy. For every one trickster there's ten dedicated editors.
I remember once in high school, we all had to do little reports on a chosen politician, looking at their life and the like. One girl and I were paired to edit our research papers and in the middle of her essay about a democratic congressman there was a really odd sentence. "X X is 'widely regarded as one of the most crooked supporters of welfare queens in politics today*'". I looked at her, followed her source down to her bibliography, and saw that it was quoted from Conservapedia. I told her 'this has to go,' and she asked why so I told her it was a biased source. It amazed me that she didn't get that and it still does to this day.

 

[Graham2001]

Two articles one from the Washington Post and the other from Snopes.com discussing how a legitimate attempt to use social media to help in the search for missing children became the source of a meme to the effect that there is an 'epidemic' of child abductions in Washington DC.

Washington Post: No, there is no spike in missing girls in D.C.; how tweets created a crisis

It began with tweets from D.C. police in late December: "CRITICAL MISSING" trumpeted one alert about a 13-year-old girl with a ponytail and pink slippers who was last seen outside her home in Southeast Washington. The siren echoed through cyberspace, retweeted 113 times, reposted by as many more on Instagram and Facebook. When the girl returned home hours later, that news was retweeted just 13 times.

....

...unbeknown to Bowser and her team, the cacophony of all-caps alerts, screaming out into cyberspace, was morphing into something else entirely: a perceived epidemic of missing girls in the nation's capital. NBA stars, rappers, Oscar winners and television personalities, each with millions of followers, began tweeting with the hashtag #missingdcgirls.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...m_term=.ffc1a5969c28&wpisrc=nl_rainbow&wpmm=1

Snopes.com: Did 14 Washington, D.C., Girls Go Missing Within a 24-Hour Period?

Claim: Fourteen teenaged girls went missing in Washington, D.C., within 24 hours.

Rating: Mixture

What's True: There were still 13 open cases involving missing teenagers in Washington, D.C., as of 27 March 2017.

What's False: Local police said there was no record of 14 teenagers in the city having disappeared within one 24-hour period.

http://www.snopes.com/washington-dc-girls-missing/

 

[NoParty]

A recent California Bill by Chau, AB 1104, 'fake news law' was pulled, but it specified,

It would be political insanity to pass any such law and have the government involved in policing such things.

I love the spirit of the attempt, but application would be an absolute mine field...and in the U.S.
we virtually always err on the right of more free speech. But boy would it be nice to reduce the dishonest bullshit.

 

[deirdre]

I just got a pop up on my FB 'wall' feed. so thumbs up FB!


"learn more":
https://www.facebook.com/help/18811...]=Chrome&qp_instance_log_data[browser_ver]=57

 

[Hama Neggs]

and in the U.S.
we virtually always err on the right of more free speech.

I hope that holds true in the face of the PC/identity politics/social engineering being implemented these days across the western world. I have my doubts, as free speech which gets designated as "hate speech" by rabid ideologs doesn't fare well.

 

[Hama Neggs]

But boy would it be nice to reduce the dishonest bullshit.

Impossible. We can only hope to teach the skills needed to separate shit from Shinola.

 

[SR1419]

news pieces that border on and sometimes fit the definition of fake news in the meaning of a story with fake facts used to push a narrative.

For example in CNN's case take the coverage of the 2016 American Election

They are pushing a narrative for sure but there are no "fake facts" used. Its not "fake news". Its biased coverage.

CNN has been caught lying in non political matters as well.

The example you gave is not evidence of CNN "lying". The actual numbers used by CNN were correct. Its their interpretation of them that the plaintiff- Carbonne- disagrees with. As the judges ruling states: "the plaintiff is not disputing the numbers; he is disputing the manner in which CNN used them as a comparison" Its a dispute over statistical methodology. Moreover, the ruling only allowed to the case to move forward and offered no judgement on the actual claims of the plaintiff. Hard to say they were "caught" when no ruling has actually determined that yet.

 

[Apple]

Thank you. That's a lot of stuff.
My first question would be about lumping CNN & Fox. The former was set up to make money.
The latter was set up to advance a political position...to the degree that Murdoch took the extraordinary
step of actually paying carriers to carry the channel. Murdoch & Roger Ailes felt strongly that the media
wasn't telling the conservative side of the story enough, so they would. And for two decades, they've been 100% faithful

to the mission: No Republican presidential candidate has had to worry that Fox wouldn't be openly promoting them.
A Cheney or Trump can always find safe haven on Fox, when they don't want to expose themselves to tough questions.

I realize that some Republicans feel CNN is like Fox (but on the other foot), but one simply can't support that view
with facts. And I'm no fan of CNN...but it's origin, reason to exist and track record are nothing like Fox's.

I'm not clear on your point on the Russia hacking (for one thing, your link #2 doesn't work)...
but it seems like you're talking about two different issues: Could Russia literally hack the election:
change electronic vote totals? (Answer: Probably not) vs. could Russia affect the outcome of the election by
releasing illegally obtained info, designed to hurt one candidate, to help the other win (Answer: Almost certainly).

Why in the world--other than traditional hyping of the news--would CNN have motive to harm a particular hospital?

I thought you were going to suggest a political bias (?)
Even still, if this really is a significant problem, why couldn't you cite a single example?
I know, you mentioned St. Mary's Medical Center, but that's currently an open file with no wrongdoing
determined. A judge merely said that a suit could proceed. All that means is that the hospital's complaint
is not so absurd as to deny them the right to try to sue. If CNN has a bad pattern, surely you can illustrate
it with multiple resolved cases that shows them lying, right? They've covered thousands and thousands of storie

After taking a closer look at my evidence you guys look to be right, at worst CNN is biased and can be deceptive and the claim that they engages in fake news and lying doesn't really hold up.

With my first piece of evidence being up to debate given the context in first piece. As it could mean election machine tampering which would be hard to impossible for an outside party to complete. While even if it means all forms of influencing then you can say the expert is wrong and it's not a lie.

The second piece of evidence is for an ongoing court case and the verdict hasn't even declared. With my carelessness in a couple months the case could result in the innocence of CNN being declared and even more there isn't really any visible motive as said. The fact that numbers if wrong could also possibly be a mistake, as if publish thousands of pieces monthly your bound to make mistakes whether you are a professional or an amateur writer/publisher/editor.

So oops on my part :3. Thanks for pointing out the issues with that guys.

And, just curious, why did you "use to believe that Snopes were shills"?

I went on longer than I wanted, but you took some time to meet my request, so I figured I owed you the same.

During the 2016 American election I came to believe a variety of far right conspiracies theories. I originally believed 911 truth, creeping sharia and all sorts of nonsense. Of the nonsense I grew to believe that the whole media was part of NWO or Deep State conspiracy and I came to believe that Snopes was just one more member. I eventually took a chance and checked them out and came to learn that the they where fine and the evidence for them being shills was nonsense.

Too this day I still believe some CTs and I hope to purge them as well. I find some are harder to debunk as 911 CTs are easier to handle as we have years of work put towards debunking it from thousands of people.

While most new CTs have been on the scene in their current form for a short duration.

Thanks for taking the time to read and reply to my post.

 

[MikeG]

New Republic offered another take on the issue in its June edition. The variations on old Cold War practices was interesting

Some of the most unsuspecting targets are American conservatives. During the Cold War, the KGB worked almost exclusively with leftist groups around the world—labor unions, socialist newspapers, and other organizations sympathetic to the communist cause. With the fall of the Soviet Union, however, Russia morphed into an equal opportunity meddler that seeks to inflame everyone from Bernie bros to Trump deplorables. "The point of an influence campaign is to get people involved who wouldn't otherwise be involved," J.M. Berger, a fellow at the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, recently told ABC News. "A lot of people in the alt-right would not necessarily characterize themselves as being pro-Russian, but they're receiving influence from this campaign."

According to Clint Watts, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute who tracks the Kremlin's digital propaganda, Russia began targeting American audiences more aggressively in late 2014. Two news outlets on the Kremlin payroll, RT and Sputnik, churned out stories about chaos among Black Lives Matter protesters and tensions during the Bundy Ranch standoff in Oregon. They also worked to undermine Clinton, fearing she would take a firm stance on Russian aggression in Ukraine. Russia's network of online "hecklers" and conspiratorial web sites then spread these Kremlin-financed stories through the internet, inflaming American conservatives. "This is the pattern," Nimmo says. "Vilifying and amplifying. You find unflattering information, and you get all the other parts of the machine to amplify the message."

https://newrepublic.com/article/142344/russia-weaponized-fake-news-sow-chaos

 

[Anuanki]

I feel the skepticism is well deserved and to second this the media has a bad track record of blowing with the wind. And at a time when people were extremely displeased with the establishment this kind of adds up to a perfect storm of distrust /fake news media problems

 

[Nuwanda]

That's exactly right.

The interesting thing about bias is it can assume the same weight/effect as fake news. Bias usually results in the favoring of one side of the story to the detriment of the other. No fakery takes place. But an agenda is pushed. And the goal of fake news is to push an agenda. It's agenda-pushing by different means.

Bias is lying by omission. Fake news is lying by commission.

They are pushing a narrative for sure but there are no "fake facts" used. Its not "fake news". Its biased coverage.

 

[Nuwanda]

It's not that using Conservapedia invalidates the information, it's that the original source was not cited. Conservapedia may very well be a reliable source on many topics. You would need to judge that it is not on this particular topic. How do you?

Let's say we cite Greenpeace as an authority for a statement made in an article. Does the fact that Greenpeace made the statement mean we can rely upon it? No. We would need to see the underlying evidence. We would need a citation for the citation.

So we say we shouldn't cite anything that isn't original material. We can't accept a statement that claims to be based on original material. We must cite the original material itself.

Yes?

No. You should be aware that every history (just to name one discipline) book cites another history book as supporting reference. They don't cite the original research, just the author/work that made it. They are relying upon YOU to read that reference whereby you will find the original material, or as often happens, another cited author/work that contains that material.

I looked at her, followed her source down to her bibliography, and saw that it was quoted from Conservapedia. I told her 'this has to go,' and she asked why so I told her it was a biased source. It amazed me that she didn't get that and it still does to this day.

 

[MikeG]

No. You should be aware that every history (just to name one discipline) book cites another history book as supporting reference. They don't cite the original research, just the author/work that made it. They are relying upon YOU to read that reference whereby you will find the original material, or as often happens, another cited author/work that contains that material.

I would be careful about over generalizing here.

Good history books cite primary (original) sources. If you want to get at the origin of the story, that is what you do. But, even original sources have a bias. Fifty years from now, historians will look at Jim Comey's memos and see original sources, but they do not offer a complete story.

History books use other authors to establish a place in the literature (historiography). You are right in saying that sometimes authors do use other secondary works for their facts as well.

Good scholars, or journalists, or anybody need to rely, as best they can, on corroboration. That is, any story is made up of bits and pieces of information. Finding a reasonable method to corroborate facts is what makes a story valid.

Bias might come from an agenda or the absence of adequate facts/analysis. These two are not the same.

A bigger point here is that we are talking about objectivity.

Beyond sources and agendas, we have to look at whether or not the author is putting a good faith effort into the process of acquiring facts, corroborating them, and presenting them.

That to me is an important difference. It separates a legitimate journalist or academic from someone like Roger Stone.

My two cents.

 

[Critical Thinker]

The New York Times just published a story about "A Pro-Trump Conspiracy Theorist, a False Tweet and a Runaway Story" that provides a timeline of how a fake news story went viral.

But as the journey of that one tweet shows, misinformed, distorted and false stories are gaining traction far beyond the fringes of the internet. Just 14 words from Mr. Posobiec's Twitter account would spread far enough to provide grist for a prime-time Fox News commentary and a Rush Limbaugh monologue that reached millions of listeners, forging an alternative first draft of history in corners of the conservative media where President Trump's troubles are often explained away as fabrications by his journalist enemies.

In this fragmented media environment, the spread of false information is accelerated and amplified by a web of allied activist-journalists with large online followings, a White House that grants them access and, occasionally, a president who validates their work. The right-wing media machine that President Bill Clinton's aides once referred to as "conspiracy commerce" is now far more mature, extensive and, in the internet age, tough to counter.

Once Mr. Posobiec pushed the send button on Twitter, the conservative media machinery kicked into gear. Later that day, Breitbart News published an account of Mr. Comey's May 3 testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee under the headline "Comey Under Oath: 'Have Not Experienced Any Requests to Stop FBI Investigations.'"

GotNews.com, a website that often misrepresents media accounts of the Russia investigation to cast Mr. Trump in a more favorable light, repeated the claim but also raised the possibility of a more serious offense. Mr. Comey, the site said, might have perjured himself if he had claimed in a memo — as outlets including The New York Times have reported — that Mr. Trump pressured him to call off an investigation into Mr. Trump's former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn.

The next day, the perjury question was the subject of an article on InfoWars, the home of Alex Jones, a conspiracy theorist who has called the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks an inside job and questioned whether the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., really happened. InfoWars had almost five million visitors in the last month.

That afternoon, Mr. Limbaugh was also onto the story, telling his audience, "Comey said, under Senate oath, he had never been pressured to halt any investigation." As evidence, Mr. Limbaugh read straight from the GotNews.com article. The whole Russia investigation, he declared, is "a political witch hunt."

That account of the Comey testimony has lived on in the weeks since, with Sean Hannity of Fox News citing it as recently as Tuesday night. "And by the way," he insisted on his program, "James Comey also said it never happened."

 

[MikeG]

I live in Pennsylvania and this story was relatively close to home. It was an interesting example of how quickly a fake story –fueled by social media—can start to spiral out of control.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-40444786

Buzzfeed did a good job of breaking down the basic elements of what happened.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatest...e-news-story?utm_term=.vbmDdlN5lp#.cvrjvebpeq