The Truth About What Constitutes "Fake News" for the Left Which They Want to Ban.

There ought to also be a lot of examination of the way news outlets have handled stories like the Duke LaCrosse case and the Michael Brown shooting, even Trayvon Martin. One outlet was caught editing the 911 tape to make it look like Zimmerman was bringing up Martin's race on his own when in reality, he was asked to give it by the dispatcher!

Is that truth or "fake"? We could also bring up the Rolling Stone Virgina U rape story which was made up out of whole cloth, but how many media outlets ran with it as truth?

originally posted by: ketsuko
There ought to also be a lot of examination of the way news outlets have handled stories like the Duke LaCrosse case and the Michael Brown shooting, even Trayvon Martin. One outlet was caught editing the 911 tape to make it look like Zimmerman was bringing up Martin's race on his own when in reality, he was asked to give it by the dispatcher!

Is that truth or "fake"? We could also bring up the Rolling Stone Virgina U rape story which was made up out of whole cloth, but how many media outlets ran with it as truth?

Indeed - the Michael Brown case was a great example. The 'hands up, don't shoot' propaganda pushed by CNN, amongst others. Fake news and they were not just reporting others views, they were participating.

a reply to: ketsuko

CBS ran with the Romney tax story.

Are they fake?

No, this is how they presented it:

Reid: "Word is out" Romney hasn't paid taxes in 10 years
AUGUST 2, 2012, 5:55 AM| Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., on Thursday blasted Mitt Romney for refusing to release his tax returns, and said the presumptive GOP nominee "makes more money in a single day than the average American middle class family makes in two years."

Your own source.

Note the attribution. The claim rests squarely on Reid. Then, about a week later, they ran this story:

Reid aide spills details about Bain source, then retracts them

(CBS News) An aide for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid this week revealed some details about the source who allegedly told Reid that Mitt Romney avoided paying taxes for 10 years, only to quickly retract those details.

www.cbsnews.com...

This should have been a red flag: when the person making a statement cannot provide you with a source for that statement, it is probably false. CBS did not try to cover this up. I could go on, but at no point could an intelligent consumer of news think that Reid's claim was a statement of fact, and it was completely disproved well before the election. On the other hand, your belief that CBS presented the statement as a statement of fact suggests that you need to learn a bit of critical thinking.

a reply to: ketsuko

Hmmm, if they get their way, then anything deemed "fake" will be more or less banned.

Who are they? How can "they" ban anything? Do "they" control the entire internet? Can they detect samizdat printing presses?

So we won't be fact checking for ourselves.

How can "they" do that? Can they cut off your telephone when you call someone to confirm if they said something? Do they steam open all the snail mail on Earth to see if it contains banned thoughts or facts?

That is what we are supposed to be doing now. Are you saying you don't?

I am doing it now. Who are "they?" How do you think "they" can accomplish what you claim "they" can do?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ketsuko

Hmmm, if they get their way, then anything deemed "fake" will be more or less banned.

Who are they? How can "they" ban anything? Do "they" control the entire internet? Can they detect samizdat printing presses?

So we won't be fact checking for ourselves.

How can "they" do that? Can they cut off your telephone when you call someone to confirm if they said something? Do they steam open all the snail mail on Earth to see if it contains banned thoughts or facts?

That is what we are supposed to be doing now. Are you saying you don't?

I am doing it now. Who are "they?" How do you think "they" can accomplish what you claim "they" can do?

You should perhaps answer these questions as you seem to be in support of information being classified as fake.
Be practical and tell us how this would be achieved.
Start with who the arbiters of truth will be.

You would have to ban Fox as well since they are documented to lie on a very regular basis.

I agree that there's a lot of bogus info out there, but I'm not sure what the right response is.

a reply to: DJW001

OK. If this is "a giant red flag that the claim is false" why run it? That means the story is rumor mongering and not actually reporting fact.

You are splitting hairs to try to say that it is a fact that Reid said this. Sure he said it, but a lot of people say a lot of things. When an alternative news source publishes the claims of abductees, it is also a fact that those people say the things they say too.

Why would you say one is "true" and one is "fake"?

a reply to: UKTruth

You should perhaps answer these questions as you seem to be in support of information being classified as fake.

I am not the one making the claim that "they" are trying to ban fake news. I do not support censorship, but I do believe that freedom of expression means that we are responsible for consuming information intelligently. We must each think critically to determine what is fact, what is opinion, and what is fiction. The list provided by the professor in the OP is actually a fair guide to this, yet the contributors here have not explained why they find it threatening.

Be practical and tell us how this would be achieved.

That is for ElectricUniverse to do, not me.

Start with who the arbiters of truth will be.

We, as individuals, are the arbiters. You are free to accept everything uncritically if you wish... just don't hold anyone but yourself responsible for any consequences of your credulity.

a reply to: DJW001

Well, then, if we are the ultimate arbiters, you should be against anything Facebook and Google are doing to try to arbitrate for us.

You should also be angry at this professor for trying to to anyone what is or is not "fake" because it's a matter of her opinion not based on anything credible.

a reply to: ketsuko

OK. If this is "a giant red flag that the claim is false" why run it? That means the story is rumor mongering and not actually reporting fact.

Not to report it would be a form of censorship. If a public figure makes a statement it is usually newsworthy. If it is a lie, they run the risk of being exposed as a liar. Objective journalism makes an accurate attribution so that the public can assess the source's trustworthiness.

You are splitting hairs to try to say that it is a fact that Reid said this. Sure he said it, but a lot of people say a lot of things.

It is not splitting hairs, it is accuracy and accountability.

When an alternative news source publishes the claims of abductees, it is also a fact that those people say the things they say too.

Correct. That dos not make what they say a fact, it just means that they make those claims. The difference between a reliable journalistic report and an unreliable one is that the reliable one makes the correct attribution and is honest in evaluating its reliability. Most "alternative media" have strong confirmation bias. They already believe that UFOs are alien spacecraft. They already believe that there is a Satanic conspiracy running the government, etc, etc, etc. Thus, they are willing to publicize claims that a moment's investigation would prove false.

Why would you say one is "true" and one is "fake"?

Information can be true or false. If false information is published as true due to some error, it is simply wrong. If it is a deliberate lie, a fiction intended to deceive, then it is "fake." You are welcome to consume fake information... but it is poisonous.

a reply to: ketsuko

Well, then, if we are the ultimate arbiters, you should be against anything Facebook and Google are doing to try to arbitrate for us.

I am not on the board of directors or a stock holder. There is nothing I can do to stop them. On the other hand, if the government forced them to change their policies, that would be censorship. For the third time, Facebook is not the only social networking site and Google is not the only search engine. If you don't like their policies, go somewhere else.

You should also be angry at this professor for trying to to anyone what is or is not "fake" because it's a matter of her opinion not based on anything credible.

Respond "true" or "false" to the following statements please:

Websites that end in “.com.co” are often fake versions of real news sources.

Sometimes lack of coverage is the result of corporate media bias and other factors, but there should typically be more than one source reporting on a topic or event.

Lack of author attribution may, but not always, signify that the news story is suspect and requires verification.

If the story makes you REALLY ANGRY it’s probably a good idea to keep reading about the topic via other sources to make sure the story you read wasn’t purposefully trying to make you angry (with potentially misleading or false information) in order to generate shares and ad revenue.

If you answered "false" to any of the above, please explain why.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

You should perhaps answer these questions as you seem to be in support of information being classified as fake.

I am not the one making the claim that "they" are trying to ban fake news. I do not support censorship, but I do believe that freedom of expression means that we are responsible for consuming information intelligently. We must each think critically to determine what is fact, what is opinion, and what is fiction. The list provided by the professor in the OP is actually a fair guide to this, yet the contributors here have not explained why they find it threatening.

Be practical and tell us how this would be achieved.

That is for ElectricUniverse to do, not me.

Start with who the arbiters of truth will be.

We, as individuals, are the arbiters. You are free to accept everything uncritically if you wish... just don't hold anyone but yourself responsible for any consequences of your credulity.

There are several reports talking about this 'fake news' and what to do about it. Whether you want to recognise it or not there are calls to label or censor information as 'fake', not just from the example in the OP.

In fact. Labelling has already started. Entire sites have been blacklisted based on the opinion of someone or some organisation we don't even know.
Sounds like you are against it, which I am too. Vehemently.
Browser extensions are being pushed and made available to show pop ups claiming a site is fake.
Do you realise where this takes us... new extensions will be made to make CNN et al show up as fake. The divide will get wider and wider as the left and right steer people away from opposing views.

The left should be careful what they wish for because the incoming govt. could easily regulate the 'lists' that people use as 'fake' lists feeding browser extensions.

Anyone who is for this kind of thing would be right at home in North Korea.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Really? is that why even the New York Times article I excerpted expressed that this list was made to ban/blacklist alternative media in that list?... BTW, are you even aware that the subject line for threads in ATS cannot be too long? I actually had to cut part of the original subject line to be able to post this here, but now you want to nickpick over the title when ATS itself doesn't allow long titles and you can't post articles with long, descriptive titles...

Just try to come up with some other believable excuse next time...

Yes, really.

www.washingtonpost.com... d9caf264d1d
college.usatoday.com...
inews.co.uk...

Please provide a source that is not fascist propaganda to suggest otherwise.

My point was not that the title was poorly crafted (although it was poorly crafted), but rather that you are lying in exactly the way she is drawing attention to. If you're not lying, you're struggling with reality on a fundamental level. I honestly don't know which to assume around here anymore. It's obvious this place is full of incipient fascists who mislead as a matter of course, but some folks are just confused and brought along for the journey. I do what I can to point out the lies.

I'm beginning to agree with whoever said the solution to the fake news problem is opening up the libel laws, just like Trump advocated.

For one, I don't think a person should have to be able to PROVE damages to bring a successful lawsuit. And the whole "absence of malice" standard is far too ambiguous.

I'm just spitballing here, but I think a "reasonable person" standard could work, in the following way: If the court determines that a reasonable person would have interpreted an article as negatively effecting the subject's reputation, and if the published information is presented as FACT when in fact it is not, it should be possible to force the article to be retracted and to levy punitive damages.

originally posted by: Greggers
I'm beginning to agree with whoever said the solution to the fake news problem is opening up the libel laws, just like Trump advocated.

For one, I don't think a person should have to be able to PROVE damages to bring a successful lawsuit. And the whole "absence of malice" standard is far too ambiguous.

I'm just spitballing here, but I think a "reasonable person" standard could work, in the following way: If the court determines that a reasonable person would have interpreted an article as negatively effecting the subject's reputation, and if the published information is presented as FACT when in fact it is not, it should be possible to force the article to be retracted and to levy punitive damages.

Bingo. That is is exactly as it should be. That way free speech is protected, but like all other free speech there can be consequences.

a reply to: DJW001

So you believe it is all well and good to arbitrate true and false for others?

Wait a minute ... of course you do! You lobbied to ban a certain source of information on this very website not so long ago!

Would you like to answer true or false to that?

Also, if it's so common knowledge that websites with .com.co are "fake," then why would they need a scarlet letter? Everyone knows it, right? And if the press hadn't squandered the public trust, no one would believe sites like The Onion and the ludicrous claims of spoof sites.

Lie often enough, and then you end up in the position of forcing people to take you at face value because they no longer will on their own.

a reply to: ketsuko

No one believes the Onion. Or atleast, no one in substantial numbers. They post right on their front page that they're satire.

These other sites don't do that. Infowars doesn't do that, CSM doesn't do that. CNN doesn't do that. Fox News doesn't do that. Huffington Post doesn't do that. Brietbart doesn't do that. They all claim to be telling you the truth, some go a step further and claim to tell you the truth the others are hiding from you. They turn people against one source and to another. If you think CNN is nothing but lies, then Zero Hedge telling you everything CNN is hiding gets more appealing.

I honestly don't know the words to describe accurately what's going on but I clearly see it. Even when you have a group media sources you check... it's still there.

Our press no longer exists. The entire media is nothing but lies.

The Birth of a Rumor....


How it all starts and where it ends up:

Eric Tucker, a 35-year-old co-founder of a marketing company in Austin, Tex., had just about 40 Twitter followers. But his recent tweet about paid protesters being bused to demonstrations against President-elect Donald J. Trump fueled a nationwide conspiracy theory — one that Mr. Trump joined in promoting.
Mr. Tucker's post was shared at least 16,000 times on Twitter and more than 350,000 times on Facebook. The problem is that Mr. Tucker got it wrong. There were no such buses packed with paid protesters.
But that didn't matter.

Read all about it here

Everyone wants truth. Right?

Nobody should be fighting for news that uses lies as an essential part of their business model.

a reply to: ketsuko

So you believe it is all well and good to arbitrate true and false for others?

No, but it is also wrong to prevent someone from pointing out a lie when they see it. Why are you defending liars from being called out? That is what this thread is about.

Wait a minute ... of course you do! You lobbied to ban a certain source of information on this very website not so long ago!

Wrong; I lobbied to ban a certain cult from using ATS to spread hate speech and warp minds. Like Facebook and Google, ATS is a for profit corporation, and can choose to charge entities that wish to advertise. I will be blunt: notifying the public that InfoWars tells blatant lies to advance its political agenda is a public service. InfoWars has the right to publish these lies, but no-one has an obligation to repeat them.

Would you like to answer true or false to that?

Absolutely. InfoWars is not a source of information, so false.

Also, if it's so common knowledge that websites with .com.co are "fake," then why would they need a scarlet letter? Everyone knows it, right?

Not all sites with .com.co are fake. Enough are that people need to be cautious when visiting them. Did you know that .com.co sites are often fake before reading the list the professor in the OP published?

And if the press hadn't squandered the public trust, no one would believe sites like The Onion and the ludicrous claims of spoof sites.

People believe whatever reinforces their preexisting beliefs. It's called "confirmation bias," and it has nothing to do with the press "squandering the public trust."

Lie often enough, and then you end up in the position of forcing people to take you at face value because they no longer will on their own.

What do you mean by this?

Now, please stop evading and answer whether you agree or disagree with these statements:

Websites that end in “.com.co” are often fake versions of real news sources.

Sometimes lack of coverage is the result of corporate media bias and other factors, but there should typically be more than one source reporting on a topic or event.

Lack of author attribution may, but not always, signify that the news story is suspect and requires verification.

If the story makes you REALLY ANGRY it’s probably a good idea to keep reading about the topic via other sources to make sure the story you read wasn’t purposefully trying to make you angry (with potentially misleading or false information) in order to generate shares and ad revenue.