fake news versus propaganda

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Hookabelly said:
Just talking about this with a friend this morning. What are your go to sources for news?
Click to expand...
Great question.

For me, NPR is a good source. CNN, ABC, Washington Post, NY Times, Politico, main media sources who for the most part have been around a long time and who's reputation is built around solid reporting. Also fact checking sites. If you don't like these sources, its not hard to check on stories that come from other sites, even if the story seems pretty wild. Maybe true, maybe not. How to tell?

Fake Or Real? How To Self-Check The News And Get The Facts
http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/12/05/503581220/fake-or-real-how-to-self-check-the-news-and-get-the-facts

a small excerpt:
Look at the quotes in a story

Or rather, look at the lack of quotes. Most publications have multiple sources in each story who are professionals and have expertise in the fields they talk about. If it's a serious or controversial issue there are more likely to be quotes — and lots of them. Look for professors or other academics who can speak to the research they've done. And if they are talking about research, look up those studies.

Look at who said them

Then, see who said the quotes, and what they said. Are they a reputable source with a title that you can verify through a quick Google search? Say you're looking at a story and it says President Obama said he wanted to take everyone's guns away. And then there's a quote. Obama is an official who has almost everything he says recorded and archived. There are transcripts for pretty much any address or speech he has given. Google those quotes. See what the speech was about, who he was addressing and when it happened. Even if he did an exclusive interview with a publication, that same quote will be referenced in other stories, saying he said it while talking to the original publication.

I find right wingers to be most extravagant in the area of fake news. Anything from @Flaming Pie or any "new member" with a handful of posts should be automatically put in that category. This is a quote from a guy who runs a fake news business:

When did you notice that fake news does best with Trump supporters?

Well, this isn't just a Trump-supporter problem. This is a right-wing issue. Sarah Palin's famous blasting of the lamestream media is kind of record and testament to the rise of these kinds of people. The post-fact era is what I would refer to it as. This isn't something that started with Trump. This is something that's been in the works for a while. His whole campaign was this thing of discrediting mainstream media sources, which is one of those dog whistles to his supporters. When we were coming up with headlines it's always kind of about the red meat. Trump really got into the red meat. He knew who his base was. He knew how to feed them a constant diet of this red meat.

We've tried to do similar things to liberals. It just has never worked, it never takes off. You'll get debunked within the first two comments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out.

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs

As you can see, I try to post links with stories and information that I post here. Its completely reasonable to ask for a link when another poster makes some strong and maybe wild claims. Links from weird sites aren't necessarily bad, but it pays to look at the "about us" section and if really curious about a story, do a search on the author's name to see what else they've been posting or to look up background information on them.

Of course, who wants to put a lot of work into looking up the background of a story only to find that it is bogus? And so, going by the common sense rule, if it looks strange and weird, it probably is. Personally, I never fact checked the "pizza gate" story until recently. I first saw it coming from Pie, it was really weird and so rejected it out of hand. Turned out it was fake. Not surprised.

One thing that I'd appreciate: if you think a story is fake, say so.

And sometimes the fake story is a story in itself. Like the one I got from a poster on RIU about Plasma Beings.
http://www.galacticfederations.net/plasmabeings.html



There is gold in them thar hills. LOL
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Hookabelly said:
freelance journalists? what about them? credible?
Click to expand...
Plenty of freelance journalists make their bones selling stories to main stream media. Their work has to check out or they can't sell more work in the future. There is no reason to discard their stories out of hand. But, in the internet, anybody can post anything. So, if a story is factual, the facts won't change. A quick search on the title of the story should tell you if the story is consistent with other information from reputable sites. Also, search the author's name for other articles of theirs. From what you've posted here, I think you have a good sense of what's real. Your "real-o-meter" should be a good guide as a starting point.

Climate Science and Climate Science Denial is a really tricky body of water to navigate. I've a science background and spent time going over the various sites. In this area that you'll actually find more sites and freelance journalists who post pseudoscience global warming denial truthy factoids. What I saw after spending time on these various sites was that there are really very few scientists who post science denial articles and the preponderance of other denier sites just re-post the same stuff over and over. Even when the original article is disproven and retracted, the denial blogs keep posting the same old false stuff. The following is a really good science-based site to check if or when one wants to follow up on a claim about the global warming, either confirming or denying:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
I don't think that fake news automatically means propaganda.

The kids in Macedonia pumping out fakery admitted they're doing it just to get advertising traffic, which doesn't rise to the level of trying to alter someone's beliefs, attitudes or perceptions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top