• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Facebook is Slowly Fixing Fake News

madman said:
Come on now, you know you only listen to conservative leaning sites. Dont try to pull a fast one on us.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, that's all that I do. That's why I've cited CNN, MSNBC etc etc in posts before. :roll:

Proof:
Kal'Stang said:
And yet they still live in squalor, get paid pennies a day, and are even occasionally harvested for organs for "important people". yeah...they sure showed them!.....not.

Report: China still harvesting organs from prisoners at a massive scale <---in case you didn't believe me about the organ harvesting.
Click to expand...

Yep, that CNN sure is a conservative bastion!
 
madman said:
Come on now, you know you only listen to conservative leaning sites. Dont try to pull a fast one on us.
Click to expand...

I love how the people who are clearly right wing leaning claim they listen to all sides and then never change their opinions. I have gone from a RW CT nut job to a progressive moderate in the past 15 years since I've been following politics.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
Yup the service is free to ban who they want.
Click to expand...

You can feel that way now, but if they keep it up one day it will be something you like being banned, so we should all be concerned don’t you agree?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MrShangles said:
You can feel that way now, but if they keep it up one day it will be something you like being banned, so we should all be concerned don’t you agree?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I honestly wouldn't care in the least.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Would you care if they did the same to CNN? MSNBC? CBS? Where do you draw the line? When do you start saying "Enough is enough! Not your job to tell me what I should/shouldn't listen to!"?
Click to expand...

If they were doing what the above-mentioned outlets were doing, no I wouldn't.
As you mentioned, it is a privately operated app, so they have enacted a set of standards and news media outlets are going to have to meet that standard, now that it is baked into the FB algorithm.

So I don't really interpret it as FB telling me what I should or shouldn't read or listen to, I see it as FB imposing their standard.
Now, in a perfect world, outfits like the Associated Press would be able to return to SETTING a universal standard, and the various outlets like FB would just simply adhere to the AP standard, but I figure "baby steps, it's a long way back to the days of Ed Murrow."
Don't forget, the Associated Press, or AP, is an American nonprofit news cooperative owned by 1,500 U.S. newspaper members. They've been around since 1846.
I'd rather see AP or something like it setting the standards than a social media outfit like Facebook.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
I honestly wouldn't care in the least.
Click to expand...

Ok then, have a nice life , I appreciate the conversation anyway. See you can still have that opinion so enjoy while you still can.
GO TRUMP!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MrShangles said:
1st amendment ring a bell, or does that matter to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. The 1st prohibits the government from "abridging the freedom of speech.". FB can limit what they wish, it's their pocket book they maybe or not harming.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Ah so its perfectly OK for them to allow "news" that is established (and that they happen to agree with) but any and all other outlets need to be shut out? Seems to me like you're promoting a monopoly. Tell me, was CNN et al considered MSM when they started out?
Click to expand...

That's something I can tell a story about.
My first wife's brother-in-law is Kenley Jones, the former NBC foreign correspondent who used to bring the Vietnam War into the living rooms of America, then who later gained continuing fame for stories like the Wayne Williams Atlanta child murders. Jones is based in Atlanta and he got an offer from CNN when Ted Turner had first started operating it out of the ramshackle headquarters at WJRJ-TV, Channel 17.
Kenley said that the major media networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS) all joked and called it "Chicken Noodle News", but the moment CNN started covering the 1991 First Persian Gulf War, the jokes about chicken noodles stopped abrubtly.
Kenley stayed with NBC because he liked his working arrangements as they were but he said he learned a lot watching them (CNN) take off the way they did. So did the major news networks.

It is important to understand that, since around 1985 or so, news departments are tasked PRIMARILY with generating ratings and posting a profit, so as long as PROFIT is the main goal, you are going to have to struggle to find objective and nonbiased content because news departments will simply continue to create the kind of content that THEIR studies show that their viewers WANT.

Sounds fair and businesslike but it's in conflict with the OBJECT OF JOURNALISM ITSELF, which is supposed to be a PUBLIC SERVICE and which is supposed to exist only for the facts themselves, not a pre-baked focus group study of viewer preferences and beliefs.

The term "mainstream news media" is supposed to stand for any outlet that is able to provide journalism with as much objectivity and as little bias as possible.
PROFIT puts that goal at cross purposes thus creating an adversarial relationship between journalists and owners.

What so many of you are interpreting as bias is really just different ways of catering to the corporate bottom line.
 
hanger4 said:
Has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. The 1st prohibits the government from "abridging the freedom of speech.". FB can limit what they wish, it's their pocket book they maybe or not harming.
Click to expand...

Just like I said, you can think like that until they start censoring what you like, it’s a slippery slope, you might want to think about it, they influence a-lot of people, it’s a new conversation medium that can us it’s influence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MrShangles said:
You can feel that way now, but if they keep it up one day it will be something you like being banned, so we should all be concerned don’t you agree?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The first amendment only applies to the government limiting free speech. My dinner table, for example, is a first amendment free zone. No discussion of body parts or functions allowed. When you have 2 middle school aged boys, you make rules like that.
 
MrShangles said:
Ok then, have a nice life , I appreciate the conversation anyway. See you can still have that opinion so enjoy while you still can.
GO TRUMP!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

As I said before you can still post stupid opinions on Facebook, that will never change.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
That's something I can tell a story about.
My first wife's brother-in-law is Kenley Jones, the former NBC foreign correspondent who used to bring the Vietnam War into the living rooms of America, then who later gained continuing fame for stories like the Wayne Williams Atlanta child murders. Jones is based in Atlanta and he got an offer from CNN when Ted Turner had first started operating it out of the ramshackle headquarters at WJRJ-TV, Channel 17.
Kenley said that the major media networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS) all joked and called it "Chicken Noodle News", but the moment CNN started covering the 1991 First Persian Gulf War, the jokes about chicken noodles stopped abrubtly.
Kenley stayed with NBC because he liked his working arrangements as they were but he said he learned a lot watching them (CNN) take off the way they did. So did the major news networks.

It is important to understand that, since around 1985 or so, news departments are tasked PRIMARILY with generating ratings and posting a profit, so as long as PROFIT is the main goal, you are going to have to struggle to find objective and nonbiased content because news departments will simply continue to create the kind of content that THEIR studies show that their viewers WANT.

Sounds fair and businesslike but it's in conflict with the OBJECT OF JOURNALISM ITSELF, which is supposed to be a PUBLIC SERVICE and which is supposed to exist only for the facts themselves, not a pre-baked focus group study of viewer preferences and beliefs.

The term "mainstream news media" is supposed to stand for any outlet that is able to provide journalism with as much objectivity and as little bias as possible.
PROFIT puts that goal at cross purposes thus creating an adversarial relationship between journalists and owners.

What so many of you are interpreting as bias is really just different ways of catering to the corporate bottom line.
Click to expand...

As someone looking to break into media companies, I need his advice on how to get jobs in them.
 
Buzz62 said:
I began my I.T. career before the WWW was a 'thing'. Ya...I'm an old fart...
We knew then, that the web presented a perfect opportunity to both educate, and market. That people, being what they are, would abuse this communications medium. And it was at the time, and still is my position that The Internet DOES need 'policing'...regulations.
Most disagree with this I'd imagine, but kids? Just look at the results...
Click to expand...

I'd say that 1984 would arguably be the last year in which the Fairness Doctrine/Ed Murrow journalism method dominated the news industry. When Reagan first began the process of killing off the Fairness Doctrine around 1985, Murrow's methods and standards pretty much began to die with it. You can't have one without the other, I'm afraid.

I first received my Associate degree in 1977, and by 1979 I was preparing for my Bachelor's in English with minors in History and journalism. That put me squarely in the crosshairs of the convergence of market forces and their influence in the newsgathering business.
And that ultimately dissuaded me from pursuing a career path in news at least from a journalism perspective.
I wound up going after the creative side in film-TV instead, and only did news coverage as a video photographer or videographer, doing freelance news stringer camera op assignments instead of attempting to be a reporter. The market wanted a different breed of reporter, someone considered for their attractiveness instead of their ability as a newshound.
I wasn't so ugly that I "had a face for radio" but I wasn't a clean cut varsity team preppie type either.

News used to be a nonprofit public service provided BY the for profit networks, and was under the umbrella of "News and Public Affairs" and the service of providing news was part of a station or network's FCC responsibility to the community and for the privilege of using "the public airwaves".

The decision that the Fairness Doctrine "interfered with the First Amendment" is only considered valid because we now seem to consider MONEY to be a form of SPEECH, as FURTHER CODIFIED in Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United and FEC vs. McCutcheon.

Personally, I see that as a massive distortion in our priorities and standards, because if money really is speech, then NO money equals NO SPEECH.

And one purpose of journalism is to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable".
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
FB is not a terrible place to get news. IDK where that rumor started, but it was probably from old people who don't know how to use the site or don't realize that lots of news sites have facebook pages.
Click to expand...

So you go to the news site. You certainly dont rely on what a social site decides to give you. Any real news site keeps the news on their site, and then links to it from social sites. Ideally people should not even be just accepting what the news site gives you. Check multiple sources, check original facts. Read a speech, not quotes from it.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I'd say that 1984 would arguably be the last year in which the Fairness Doctrine/Ed Murrow journalism method dominated the news industry. When Reagan first began the process of killing off the Fairness Doctrine around 1985, Murrow's methods and standards pretty much began to die with it. You can't have one without the other, I'm afraid.

I first received my Associate degree in 1977, and by 1979 I was preparing for my Bachelor's in English with minors in History and journalism. That put me squarely in the crosshairs of the convergence of market forces and their influence in the newsgathering business.
And that ultimately dissuaded me from pursuing a career path in news at least from a journalism perspective.
I wound up going after the creative side in film-TV instead, and only did news coverage as a video photographer or videographer, doing freelance news stringer camera op assignments instead of attempting to be a reporter. The market wanted a different breed of reporter, someone considered for their attractiveness instead of their ability as a newshound.
I wasn't so ugly that I "had a face for radio" but I wasn't a clean cut varsity team preppie type either.

News used to be a nonprofit public service provided BY the for profit networks, and was under the umbrella of "News and Public Affairs" and the service of providing news was part of a station or network's FCC responsibility to the community and for the privilege of using "the public airwaves".

The decision that the Fairness Doctrine "interfered with the First Amendment" is only considered valid because we now seem to consider MONEY to be a form of SPEECH, as FURTHER CODIFIED in Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United and FEC vs. McCutcheon.

Personally, I see that as a massive distortion in our priorities and standards, because if money really is speech, then NO money equals NO SPEECH.

And one purpose of journalism is to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable".
Click to expand...

According to journalists. Govt has and should have nothing to do with it. The purpose of govt is to protect your life and liberty so that you can speak or not speak. Its not to ensure your speech gets heard. The purpose of the bill of rights was to make sure govt didnt interfere and stop speech or the press, not to assist it in getting out.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
As someone looking to break into media companies, I need his advice on how to get jobs in them.
Click to expand...

HIS advice? He's an old Edward Murrow guy so he'd laugh, and probably tell you that you better have a good agent, a good publicist and a damn good makeup artist and wardrobe consultant.
And the fact is, that IS what all good on-screen news media professionals have these days.

The funny thing is, the old AFTRA union (American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) used to behave as if they didn't quite know what to do with the hard-boiled news reporter types. AFTRA talent included actors in radio and television, radio and television announcers and news reporters, singers and recording artists (both royalty artists and background singers), promo and voice-over announcers and other performers in commercials, stunt persons and specialty acts.

Everyone else had jobs that looked, sounded and felt like performers and actors, while the reporters weren't allowed to "act" or perform. The whole point about news was, "the reporter is NOT the STORY". Today, AFTRA is just part of SAG, the Screen Actors Guild.
Makes sense, considering the way news works today.

What specifically are you looking to do? Do you want to be a reporter?
I've trained on air journalists all my life. My demo tapes get reporters jobs.
 
jonny5 said:
According to journalists. Govt has and should have nothing to do with it. The purpose of govt is to protect your life and liberty so that you can speak or not speak. Its not to ensure your speech gets heard. The purpose of the bill of rights was to make sure govt didnt interfere and stop speech or the press, not to assist it in getting out.
Click to expand...

You're ignoring what I said W.R.T. money being defined as speech.
But I understand, because liberty is so important to "libertarians" that they think actually getting to exercise liberty should be a privilege that is overwhelmingly rationed in favor of the rich.
Recognizing this ought to tell us what we are dealing with.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
HIS advice? He's an old Edward Murrow guy so he'd laugh, and probably tell you that you better have a good agent, a good publicist and a damn good makeup artist and wardrobe consultant.
And the fact is, that IS what all good on-screen news media professionals have these days.

The funny thing is, the old AFTRA union (American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) used to behave as if they didn't quite know what to do with the hard-boiled news reporter types. AFTRA talent included actors in radio and television, radio and television announcers and news reporters, singers and recording artists (both royalty artists and background singers), promo and voice-over announcers and other performers in commercials, stunt persons and specialty acts.

Everyone else had jobs that looked, sounded and felt like performers and actors, while the reporters weren't allowed to "act" or perform. The whole point about news was, "the reporter is NOT the STORY". Today, AFTRA is just part of SAG, the Screen Actors Guild.
Makes sense, considering the way news works today.

What specifically are you looking to do? Do you want to be a reporter?
I've trained on air journalists all my life. My demo tapes get reporters jobs.
Click to expand...

Oh Hell no. I don't want to be reporter, I hate seeing myself on camera and I have a weird voice (radio?), but I love media. I'm going back to school next year for media studies. I have a media blog already that has about 60K pageviews. I honestly just want to learn all about the industry and be stuck in the action. I have a post about it here. https://www.debatepolitics.com/self-help-and-advice/311201-back-school-me.html You can comment there as to not derail this thread.
 
MrShangles said:
Just like I said, you can think like that until they start censoring what you like, it’s a slippery slope, you might want to think about it, they influence a-lot of people, it’s a new conversation medium that can us it’s influence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what they censor or whether or not I like or dislike what they censor. There is no public accommodation issues to content with, their services are free.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
I am so happy to be seeing this. This type of viral crap website whether they be conservative or liberal, suck and are annoying for anyone who has an attention span longer than five seconds. They hurt everything that the internet was built and intended for.


https://mediapost.com/publications/...ative-site-rareus-to-shutter-couldnt-sur.html

Some graphs here: https://theoutline.com/post/3599/co...by-facebook-news-feed-change?zd=2&zi=d3yobbtj

The sites that used Facebook the most:



https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathle...tes-that-stand-to-lose-the-most/#497f28d234ec

This should be applauded, but for some reason I think it will be mostly mocked here. Let's see.
Click to expand...

I'll mock it.Why does Facebook even care what's posted on Facebook? It's not their problem.
I mean it's almost if they were liberals trying to shut down opposing views. ( Derisive smirk)
 
KLATTU said:
I'll mock it.Why does Facebook even care what's posted on Facebook? It's not their problem.
I mean it's almost if they were liberals trying to shut down opposing views. ( Derisive smirk)
Click to expand...

Daybe feared o dem ebil ruskie bots medlin in de brains-fer-mush facebookies.

Seriously, it's just business PR.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
I am so happy to be seeing this. This type of viral crap website whether they be conservative or liberal, suck and are annoying for anyone who has an attention span longer than five seconds. They hurt everything that the internet was built and intended for.


https://mediapost.com/publications/...ative-site-rareus-to-shutter-couldnt-sur.html

Some graphs here: https://theoutline.com/post/3599/co...by-facebook-news-feed-change?zd=2&zi=d3yobbtj

The sites that used Facebook the most:



https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathle...tes-that-stand-to-lose-the-most/#497f28d234ec

This should be applauded, but for some reason I think it will be mostly mocked here. Let's see.
Click to expand...

I’m not happy with FB last week the closed my account after 20 years.
 
MrShangles said:
Have you ever did your own investigation of these sites, or are you just talking someone else’s word about it.
What gives anybody the right to decide what I choose to listen to, I personally don’t think infowars lies anymore than the MSM


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Your comment suggests that you don't know the difference between editorial opinion and news.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom