• 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!

Fake News Tips

MaggieD

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,664
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Thought this was interesting...

I'm a total skeptic when it comes to statistics and sensational news. Sensational/click bait news costs personal integrity and is harmful at a societal level as we seek to foster informed conversations. I think sometimes non-trustworthy news is shared out of carelessness, but other times, its because an article pushes a particular narrative we subscribe to and we care more about perpetuating our agenda than the truth. Let's be people of integrity- let's let our agenda be informed by the truth rather than the truth by our agenda. Here are a few tips Mike McHargue and Michael Gungor share on their Podcast for discerning trustworthy media:

1. Legitimate news media will name the author and contributors to create accountability. No author? Decrease your confidence in its quality.

2. Where was this published? Have I heard of this organization/institution and do they have an agenda? Is there an editorial review board? ERBs fact check claims and hold accountable. Does this institution publish corrections/reclaims/letters to editorial - a means for the readers to hold them accountable?

3. Date of publication. An article might be accurate reporting shared out of context or applied to a situation in a deceptive way.

4. Trustworthy sites offer specific sources - references for quotes/information by name/institution.

5. Is this article well-written? Grammar mistakes, slang, and All-Caps is not a good sign.

6. Does anything in the piece make me angry or afraid? If so, we should have an obligation to do further research before sharing. (Read the piece and not just the headline).

7. Cross-check with fact checking organizations such as snopes.com, politifact.com, factcheck.org.

8. Read from a variety of sources that span the political spectrum and both local and national media to build a balanced view.
Click to expand...


To this, I would add my own advice...

According to reliable highly placed sources” should have in parentheses...(Of course, that means this could be untrue because we never have to reveal our sources.)

One must also watch biased language. Headline reads...”Paul Ryan Slams Fellow Republican.” Fair reporting would read “Paul Ryan Criticizes Fellow Republican.”

And be sure you’re reading NEWS and not editorial copy. In many cases, it’s difficult to tell the difference.

There’s more to fake news than meets the eye. And always remember to follow the money. The media’s objective? To sell ads and subscriptions.

Anything to add?


 
Some "news" articles are clearly all about criticizing a person's personality or idiosyncraies or mannerisms, and either the writer or the publication repetitively does this about that individual or individuals in general. That's character assassination masquerading as news .. fake news. Such tabloid gossip is simply that.
 
MaggieD said:
Thought this was interesting...



To this, I would add my own advice...

[/FONT][/COLOR]According to reliable highly placed sources” should have in parentheses...(Of course, that means this could be untrue because we never have to reveal our sources.)

One must also watch biased language. Headline reads...”Paul Ryan Slams Fellow Republican.” Fair reporting would read “Paul Ryan Criticizes Fellow Republican.”

And be sure you’re reading NEWS and not editorial copy. In many cases, it’s difficult to tell the difference.

There’s more to fake news than meets the eye. And always remember to follow the money. The media’s objective? To sell ads and subscriptions.

Anything to add?

[/FONT]
[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

I love number six.

Its the first time I've seen a direct reference to strong emotional responses being a warning sign of manipulative messaging.

It's always been about emotions.

That's the "vector".
 
MaggieD said:
Thought this was interesting...



To this, I would add my own advice...

[/FONT][/COLOR]According to reliable highly placed sources” should have in parentheses...(Of course, that means this could be untrue because we never have to reveal our sources.)

One must also watch biased language. Headline reads...”Paul Ryan Slams Fellow Republican.” Fair reporting would read “Paul Ryan Criticizes Fellow Republican.”

And be sure you’re reading NEWS and not editorial copy. In many cases, it’s difficult to tell the difference.

There’s more to fake news than meets the eye. And always remember to follow the money. The media’s objective? To sell ads and subscriptions.

Anything to add?

[/FONT]
[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...
That's pretty good stuff. When you asked if there was anything that we had to add to your presentation I thought of one thing in particular; the topic. For instance, I know that if somebody post an article about fake news there's a 100% chance that there a Republican. I know this because the term didn't exist until Trump use it as president. There's actually very little fake news. But there is bad news. I occasionally watch Fox News just to see what the other side is thinking. Though I know it's b*******.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
 
MaggieD said:
Thought this was interesting...



To this, I would add my own advice...

[/FONT][/COLOR]According to reliable highly placed sources” should have in parentheses...(Of course, that means this could be untrue because we never have to reveal our sources.)

One must also watch biased language. Headline reads...”Paul Ryan Slams Fellow Republican.” Fair reporting would read “Paul Ryan Criticizes Fellow Republican.”

And be sure you’re reading NEWS and not editorial copy. In many cases, it’s difficult to tell the difference.

There’s more to fake news than meets the eye. And always remember to follow the money. The media’s objective? To sell ads and subscriptions.

Anything to add?

[/FONT]
[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

GREAT post Maggie.

I don't have much to add.

Except.....

If you see DJT's lips moving, well............................ you know.
 
I got a fake news tip. If youtube is claiming to break news no one else has, it's fake.
 
MaggieD said:
Thought this was interesting...

To this, I would add my own advice...

According to reliable highly placed sources” should have in parentheses...(Of course, that means this could be untrue because we never have to reveal our sources.)

One must also watch biased language. Headline reads...”Paul Ryan Slams Fellow Republican.” Fair reporting would read “Paul Ryan Criticizes Fellow Republican.”

And be sure you’re reading NEWS and not editorial copy. In many cases, it’s difficult to tell the difference.

There’s more to fake news than meets the eye. And always remember to follow the money. The media’s objective? To sell ads and subscriptions.

Anything to add?
Click to expand...


I've tried to point this out time and again whenever some new "news" comes out which is nothing more than sordid gossip meant to belittle, or harm the reputation of the subject.

There is always an issue when dealing with anonymous sources, but one of the things I look at first is...what is being reported?

If it is information provided about some factual and relevant issue which can eventually be confirmed by an investigation, then I give it some credence pending confirmation.

When it is gossip and innuendo, as we keep seeing time and again being reported as news (ex. "sources say Tillerson called Trump a moron," or "sources say Trump wants to massively increase nuclear arsenal") then I wonder what is the point other than to sensationalize for advertising sales and to feed assumption bias in the recipients.

The wall Street Journal editor was right when he told his staff writers:

“Sorry. This is commentary dressed up as news reporting,” Baker wrote*in one email, according to the Times. In a subsequent*email, he said, “Could we please just stick to reporting what he said rather than packaging it in exegesis and selective criticism?”
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ked-to-new-york-times/?utm_term=.714521fa3370

Everything else you stated Maggie is right on the money.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I've tried to point this out time and again whenever some new "news" comes out which is nothing more than sordid gossip meant to belittle, or harm the reputation of the subject.

There is always an issue when dealing with anonymous sources, but one of the things I look at first is...what is being reported?

If it is information provided about some factual and relevant issue which can eventually be confirmed by an investigation, then I give it some credence pending confirmation.

When it is gossip and innuendo, as we keep seeing time and again being reported as news (ex. "sources say Tillerson called Trump a moron," or "sources say Trump wants to massively increase nuclear arsenal") then I wonder what is the point other than to sensationalize for advertising sales and to feed assumption bias in the recipients.

The wall Street Journal editor was right when he told his staff writers:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ked-to-new-york-times/?utm_term=.714521fa3370

Everything else you stated Maggie is right on the money.
Click to expand...

I’ve been attacking these anonymous source stories lately because it’s like a conspiracy theory. Could it have happened? Yeah, possible. Is there going to be any way to verify it? Not likely. Like you say, gossip and innuendo. And the moron story is the perfect example.

I think I’ll use your benchmark. Give it more weight if it can be independently verified with facts (not he said she said he said). And if it’s the moron kind of story? Call baloney.

As people who jumped all over me said, look how valuable anonymous sources can be. And that’s true. But unless something can be independently verified, an anonymous tip isn’t worth the ink on the paper.
 
This can all be summed as: approach every news article you read with a grain of salt, doubly so if you already agree with its view before you dive into it.

American mainstream media, they lie by omission on a regular basis and their first loyalty is to their corporate profits. You should assume they're somehow trying to manipulate you for their benefit, which means their fiduciary responsibility as a member of the press is already skewed. Ironically, people used to fact check alternative sources against mainstream media, now the opposite has to happen.

The corporate infrastructure is out of control we lack a government that's willing to do anything about it. Every time I fact check a story from the mainstream news, there are always major details missing, details that no journalist worth their title would overlook. So it's obvious that the big news corps have an agenda -- all of them, not just the right-wing ones or left-wing ones. They are all failing us.
 
Ontologuy said:
Some "news" articles are clearly all about criticizing a person's personality or idiosyncraies or mannerisms, and either the writer or the publication repetitively does this about that individual or individuals in general. That's character assassination masquerading as news .. fake news. Such tabloid gossip is simply that.
Click to expand...

But the things you mention are the things we use to assess everyone around us.

There's no way its been turned into a tool to manipulate us.

That's crazy talk!
 
MaggieD said:
Thought this was interesting...



To this, I would add my own advice...

[/FONT][/COLOR]According to reliable highly placed sources” should have in parentheses...(Of course, that means this could be untrue because we never have to reveal our sources.)

One must also watch biased language. Headline reads...”Paul Ryan Slams Fellow Republican.” Fair reporting would read “Paul Ryan Criticizes Fellow Republican.”

And be sure you’re reading NEWS and not editorial copy. In many cases, it’s difficult to tell the difference.

There’s more to fake news than meets the eye. And always remember to follow the money. The media’s objective? To sell ads and subscriptions.

Anything to add?

[/FONT]
[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

That's rather well observed, I find.
 
One of the tactics of fake news purveyors is to discredit the mainstream media, which while far from perfect, does attempt accuracy in the details of what they report. (editorial aside) Yes they make mistakes, but if people turn away from them to less reliable sources for their news, then the fake purveyors can have a field day. And do.
 
Dirt Sands said:
That's pretty good stuff. When you asked if there was anything that we had to add to your presentation I thought of one thing in particular; the topic. For instance, I know that if somebody post an article about fake news there's a 100% chance that there a Republican. I know this because the term didn't exist until Trump use it as president. There's actually very little fake news. But there is bad news. I occasionally watch Fox News just to see what the other side is thinking. Though I know it's b*******.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No 5. "That there Republican".
 
I'd like to add that many articles will source a study to support the article, but often times the study is done by a completely biased organization. Almost as often the actual linked study does not support the statements made in the article. I have seen plenty of articles that claim a study supports it only to find that in the summary of the linked study it states the exact opposite.
 
MaggieD said:
Thought this was interesting...



To this, I would add my own advice...

[/FONT][/COLOR]According to reliable highly placed sources” should have in parentheses...(Of course, that means this could be untrue because we never have to reveal our sources.)

One must also watch biased language. Headline reads...”Paul Ryan Slams Fellow Republican.” Fair reporting would read “Paul Ryan Criticizes Fellow Republican.”

And be sure you’re reading NEWS and not editorial copy. In many cases, it’s difficult to tell the difference.

There’s more to fake news than meets the eye. And always remember to follow the money. The media’s objective? To sell ads and subscriptions.

Anything to add?

[/FONT]
[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

If the "news" you just obtained is coming to you solely through a chain email... It's fake.
Same goes for Facebook/social media. If these are your trusted primary sources, you are a giant victim waiting to be duped.

These two sources are merely today's heresay Granny gossip mills.
 
What if...? said:
But the things you mention are the things we use to assess everyone around us.
Click to expand...
The topic is "Fake News" Tips.

Listening or reading hearsay about hearsay or a biased "commentary" does not make the presentation "news".

In addition, we "assess everyone around us", as you say, from our own experience personally with them, not through hearsay about hearsay from others, at least not reasonably we don't (aside from danger warnings which are only relevant if there's truly danger).

You can receive your own news by watching and listening to video of the speeches of those relevant, and when you see/hear something directly from the horse's mouth for the first time, then it's real news to you.

But talking with others, listening to hearsay from others where the pertinent facts that are new are skipped and it's all about personality, idiosyncracies, mannerisms, and the like, that just keeps getting repeated, that's not news, that's gossip, and it's usually presented emotionally and for the sake of getting people to agree and be supportive of the presenter .. again.


What if...? said:
There's no way its been turned into a tool to manipulate us.
Click to expand...
It is most definitely manipulative. That's indeed another way you can tell if the presentation is fake news -- it has the feel of manipulation.

Some people, however, can't sense when they're being manipulated. Others turn off that sense when the fake news castigates someone they don't like.


What if...? said:
That's crazy talk!
Click to expand...
:roll:
 
Ontologuy said:
The topic is "Fake News" Tips.

Listening or reading hearsay about hearsay or a biased "commentary" does not make the presentation "news".

In addition, we "assess everyone around us", as you say, from our own experience personally with them, not through hearsay about hearsay from others, at least not reasonably we don't (aside from danger warnings which are only relevant if there's truly danger).

You can receive your own news by watching and listening to video of the speeches of those relevant, and when you see/hear something directly from the horse's mouth for the first time, then it's real news to you.

But talking with others, listening to hearsay from others where the pertinent facts that are new are skipped and it's all about personality, idiosyncracies, mannerisms, and the like, that just keeps getting repeated, that's not news, that's gossip, and it's usually presented emotionally and for the sake of getting people to agree and be supportive of the presenter .. again.



It is most definitely manipulative. That's indeed another way you can tell if the presentation is fake news -- it has the feel of manipulation.

Some people, however, can't sense when they're being manipulated. Others turn off that sense when the fake news castigates someone they don't like.



:roll:
Click to expand...

You obviously have forgotten who I am.

That's why you missed the sarcasm!
 
It appears someone doesn't realize that investigation journalism has only ever been able to address government corruption because of reliance on anonymous sources.
 
I would add the shorter the article the higher the likelihood of bias or being fake.


As for Trump being called a moron. Who at some point in time not called a coworker or boss a moron or an idiot.

Does it really matter, no.
 
MaggieD said:
Thought this was interesting...



To this, I would add my own advice...

[/FONT][/COLOR]According to reliable highly placed sources” should have in parentheses...(Of course, that means this could be untrue because we never have to reveal our sources.)

One must also watch biased language. Headline reads...”Paul Ryan Slams Fellow Republican.” Fair reporting would read “Paul Ryan Criticizes Fellow Republican.”

And be sure you’re reading NEWS and not editorial copy. In many cases, it’s difficult to tell the difference.

There’s more to fake news than meets the eye. And always remember to follow the money. The media’s objective? To sell ads and subscriptions.

Anything to add?

[/FONT]
[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

Just a couple of things...it would appear that people should probably not depend on either Facebook or Trump tweets as reliable sources to obtain their news, according to the opinions presented.

Good advice...so you aren't a Trump supporter?

Follow the money...ah yes, let's not forget the Mueller investigation that we both wish to see get to the bottom of this "Russian thing".
 
Lol that's why sometimes it's hard to believe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom