Fake News

[commonsense]

We are bombarded by news, both fake and real, on a daily basis. We tend to believe news that supports our opinions and distrust news that does not. What advice do you have about how to distinguish between these two kinds of news?

[-1-]

We are bombarded by news, both fake and real, on a daily basis. We tend to believe news that supports our opinions and distrust news that does not. What advice do you have about how to distinguish between these two kinds of news?

You and your questions.

Is it assumed that in the above scenario you can't actually check validity of news?

If it is, then it's an unanswerable question. Why ask unanswerable questions? Is this what philosophy means to you?

I mean, there is some philosophical merit to this. But no amount of discussion can find an answer to satisfy your questions. In fact, your questions all demand a convergent type answer when only a divergent type answer can be used.

[Philosophy Explorer]

We are bombarded by news, both fake and real, on a daily basis. We tend to believe news that supports our opinions and distrust news that does not. What advice do you have about how to distinguish between these two kinds of news?

Generally when I see a bunch of articles that carry the same story, I tend to believe.

Case in point. I saw an article months ago saying cats were estimated to be killing birds in Australia at the rate of one million a day. I didn't believe it and I never saw that story run again.

PhilX

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

While obviously this doesn't make what the person is saying suddenly true, I do think it helps to sift through bias if an immediate disclosure is given about where that person stands politically if they're talking about a subject that's clearly going to be shifted because of it. For example, if the young turks preceded an article about single payer health care by saying, "this is where we stand as progressives".

There's a relatively short list of things that should try to be made into a bi-partisan issue, and unfortunately everyone wants every one of their opinions to be accepted by everyone else. While that's a perfectly natural desire, if you try to actualize that by passing something off as a universally accepted fact when you know that it's very well not, that is when there is an issue. In my opinion, that's the crux of the 'fake news' issue from the fox-and-friends, to the Infowars of the world. On the more mainstream side, I think CNN is also extremely guilty of doing this.

[Greta]

Fox is the champion. Actually the Murdoch stable. Back in the 50s, as a young Turk, Murdoch boasted that he could sway elections. Back then it was seen as an impressive display of power and achievement rather than a distortion of the democratic process. He lowered the bar. Before Murdoch there was more honour in journalism, where truthfulness mattered and a lost reputation for truthfulness would impact on the work one could do (my mother was a journalist at the time).

Of course, the loophole was there with voluntary industry codes of conduct, so if it wasn't Murdoch it would have been someone else exploiting it.

[-1-]

Generally when I see a bunch of articles that carry the same story, I tend to believe.

Case in point. I saw an article months ago saying cats were estimated to be killing birds in Australia at the rate of one million a day. I didn't believe it and I never saw that story run again.

PhilX

That's each cat killing a million birds every day, or all the cats together killing a million birds every day? From the semantics it may be clear which of the two, but from the composition it is unclear.

It is nice when the composition smoothly and seamlessly predicates the semantics.

If it's the first, I wouldn't believe it either. Unless Australia is really full of mean cats.

That would explain how come Greta is such a great mod. d-:

[Dubious]

Whereas some journalists have clearly not been robustly honest in their presentations, I think most of the fake news emerges from the bowels of the deep state that journalists, even those not in collusion, are obligated to report. It's fake news in the form of lies meant to mislead. In that sense it can also be a propaganda tool.

[commonsense]

We are bombarded by news, both fake and real, on a daily basis. We tend to believe news that supports our opinions and distrust news that does not. What advice do you have about how to distinguish between these two kinds of news?

You and your questions.

Is it assumed that in the above scenario you can't actually check validity of news?

If it is, then it's an unanswerable question. Why ask unanswerable questions? Is this what philosophy means to you?

I mean, there is some philosophical merit to this. But no amount of discussion can find an answer to satisfy your questions. In fact, your questions all demand a convergent type answer when only a divergent type answer can be used.

Thank you, -1-, for your insightful post.

The assumption is yours.
(I suppose validity could be checked by witnessing an event first hand. But this is impractical in the world as we know it.)

Please allow me to amend the question for clarity's sake, as follows: what process do you know for attempting to distinguish between these two kinds of news? ('None" is an acceptable answer, but I hope there are other, more valuable, answers.)

[commonsense]

by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:19 pm

While obviously this doesn't make what the person is saying suddenly true, I do think it helps to sift through bias if an immediate disclosure is given about where that person stands politically if they're talking about a subject that's clearly going to be shifted because of it. For example, if the young turks preceded an article about single payer health care by saying, "this is where we stand as progressives".
There's a relatively short list of things that should try to be made into a bi-partisan issue, and unfortunately everyone wants every one of their opinions to be accepted by everyone else. While that's a perfectly natural desire, if you try to actualize that by passing something off as a universally accepted fact when you know that it's very well not, that is when there is an issue. In my opinion, that's the crux of the 'fake news' issue from the fox-and-friends, to the Infowars of the world. On the more mainstream side, I think CNN is also extremely guilty of doing this.



by Greta » Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:49 pm

Fox is the champion. Actually the Murdoch stable. Back in the 50s, as a young Turk, Murdoch boasted that he could sway elections. Back then it was seen as an impressive display of power and achievement rather than a distortion of the democratic process. He lowered the bar. Before Murdoch there was more honour in journalism, where truthfulness mattered and a lost reputation for truthfulness would impact on the work one could do (my mother was a journalist at the time).
Of course, the loophole was there with voluntary industry codes of conduct, so if it wasn't Murdoch it would've been someone else exploiting it.



by Dubious » Wed Feb 07, 2018 5:35 am

Whereas some journalists have clearly not been robustly honest in their presentations, I think most of the fake news emerges from the bowels of the deep state that journalists, even those not in collusion, are obligated to report. It's fake news in the form of lies meant to mislead. In that sense it can also be a propaganda tool. \l "


by commonsense

Yes, but how would this be implemented. In other words, can you think of a strategy to reduce or eliminate the amount of fake news being launched from a(ll) platform(s)? How would such a strategy be possible in our current universe? How effective could it be?

[commonsense]

by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:19 pm
...I think CNN is also extremely guilty of doing this.

by Greta » Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:49 pm
Fox is the champion....


Common sense says

Yes. Both sides are slanting their presentations of the news. Even their headlines contain subtle elements of persuasion. Compare the following (ersatz) headlines for what is said and how it is said:

So-and-so Slams Such-and-such
So-and-so Disagrees with Such-and-such
Such-and-such Slammed by So-and-so

[Philosophy Explorer]

Generally when I see a bunch of articles that carry the same story, I tend to believe.

Case in point. I saw an article months ago saying cats were estimated to be killing birds in Australia at the rate of one million a day. I didn't believe it and I never saw that story run again.

PhilX

That's each cat killing a million birds every day, or all the cats together killing a million birds every day? From the semantics it may be clear which of the two, but from the composition it is unclear.

It is nice when the composition smoothly and seamlessly predicates the semantics.

If it's the first, I wouldn't believe it either. Unless Australia is really full of mean cats.

That would explain how come Greta is such a great mod. d-:

It doesn't matter to me how mean the cat is. They first have to catch the birds which is highly unlikely.

PhilX

[-1-]

In the United States at least a million cats catch a million birds every night. And that's a slow night, when the liquor stores are closed and people are doing their homework or cramming for the finals.

The birds used to be called "nice dish" at one point, "birds" at another point, and at yet another point, "fox".

And the cats used to be called cats, but now they are called wolves. Some are called cads. Cats-cads, easy phoneme transformation.

Then they go for the kill. Some cats are indeed called "killer". Not to be mistaken for "murderer"!! That's another different class altogether.

Kills per capita are still way ahead of murder per capita. Even in the USA.

[Philosophy Explorer]

In the United States at least a million cats catch a million birds every night. And that's a slow night, when the liquor stores are closed and people are doing their homework or cramming for the finals.

The birds used to be called "nice dish" at one point, "birds" at another point, and yet at another point, "fox".

And the cats used to be called cats, but now they are called wolves. Some are called cads. Cats-cads, easy phoneme transformation.

Then they go for the kill. Some cats are indeed called "killer". Not to be mistaken for "murderer"!! That's another different class altogether.

Kills per capita are still way ahead of murder per capita. Even in the USA.

Since the birds can easily fly away, how would the cats catch them?

PhilX

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Yes, but how would this be implemented

I think I told you how. People should just be more open about where their biases are rooted. If Sean Hannity opened up his show by saying, "by the way, I'm a massive cock sucker for trump, so keep that in mind in my portrayal of the news" I think it could go a long way. When there's vested interest (like a paid sponsorship), a disclaimer proclaiming your bias is required. While it wouldn't stop the influx of fake news - and I definitely wouldn't want to take the route of censorship - it would make it easier for people to realize there are other sides to the story.

Now, in spite of the example I just gave, I think Fox News actually does wear their biases on their sleeve. Even most of the conservative audience tuning in now know what they're in for. I think one of the main reasons why so many people hate CNN, is because they don't do this. They don't make their biases apparent, by proxy or otherwise. And what's ironic, is that CNN has a lot more reason to hate trump than Sean Hannity has reason to love him, yet that doesn't sway many of the same people who don't watch Hannity for this very reason, away from watching CNN.

I think this is covering more of the mainstream examples, which you seem to want to talk about. If we're talking about the more obvious ones like the people who buy into the headlines you'll see spammed on facebook like "Hilary Clinton body count up to 15!", well I think many of those people are beyond hope. But I think notes disclaiming that the source is from a notable conspiracy site could be beneficial, so both the OP and the onlookers at least know what they're getting into.

[henry quirk]

"What advice do you have about how to distinguish between these two kinds of news?"

Look for reporting...that is: look for the facts (who, what, where, when, how).

If you're being told 'why', then you're being exposed to propaganda.

You must be careful. The propaganda industry has been in operation for a looooong time...the best of that bunch can seamlessly weave fact and 'nonfact' together. Couple that skill with an audience trained for gullibility and overwhelmed by too much of everything and you get 'narratives' instead of truth (fact).