• 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!

CBC's chat bot helps you spot 'fake news' — and avoid spreading it

TU Curmudgeon

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
62,525
Reaction score
19,316
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From the CBC (which does NOT stand for Communist Bull**** Conspiracy [no matter what your friends tell you])

CBC's chat bot helps you spot 'fake news' — and avoid spreading it
​

If you think you've been fooled by "fake news," you're not alone.

Ninety per cent of Canadians feel they've fallen for it at some point, according to an Ipsos Public Affairs for Canada's Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI).

And it will, more than ever, play a role in this federal election.

Disinformation frequently spreads on Facebook so that's why we've created a chat bot tool there through Messenger, to help you spot disinformation and decide what news sources you can trust throughout the campaign.

You can launch the chat bot here. You can also start the chat by typing "guide" to CBC News on Messenger.

If you opt in, the chat bot will guide you through five weeks of learning about deepfakes, altered photos and articles that may look like they're from news sites — but aren't. Here's what you will learn:

...

COMMENT:-

This doesn't fit ANY category that I can think of except, possibly, "Public Service Announcements" - but I thought that some people might find it interesting and/or useful (even if only as a place to refer other people who DO get taken in by "Fake News" on a routine basis).​
 
Here's the problem with "fake news" -

The recent CNN story about the US spy that got pulled out of Russia made it sound like the reasoning was that the IC didn't trust Trump. The said something along the lines of, "sources tell us that Trump's handling of classified material was part of the concern" and then went on to write a piece that, if given a cursory read, would lead the reader to the conclusion that Trump was the PRIMARY reason for the exfiltration.

There really wasn't anything "fake" about the CNN story. It's just that the whole thing was wrapped up in a giant burrito of bull**** and omissions. Unless one took the time to read the entire article, question one or two of the comments in the article and then do their own check on the totality of the facts and circumstances they would be left with an impression that didn't reflect the reality of the situation.
 
Lutherf said:
Here's the problem with "fake news" -

The recent CNN story about the US spy that got pulled out of Russia made it sound like the reasoning was that the IC didn't trust Trump. The said something along the lines of, "sources tell us that Trump's handling of classified material was part of the concern" and then went on to write a piece that, if given a cursory read, would lead the reader to the conclusion that Trump was the PRIMARY reason for the exfiltration.

There really wasn't anything "fake" about the CNN story. It's just that the whole thing was wrapped up in a giant burrito of bull**** and omissions. Unless one took the time to read the entire article, question one or two of the comments in the article and then do their own check on the totality of the facts and circumstances they would be left with an impression that didn't reflect the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...

So the problem is more to do with lazy people unwilling to read things past the first paragraph or so?

To me the problem is with media tailored for that type of person. Not to pick on the Daily Caller but it is one of the prime examples of companies that produce short sensational articles that have nothing but half truths, with little depth behind it
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
So the problem is more to do with lazy people unwilling to read things past the first paragraph or so?

To me the problem is with media tailored for that type of person. Not to pick on the Daily Caller but it is one of the prime examples of companies that produce short sensational articles that have nothing but half truths, with little depth behind it
Click to expand...

Not just lazy people. The media is often intentionally misleading in their stories. While playing that game night not exactly be a lie it is pretty damned unethical.
 
Lutherf said:
Not just lazy people. The media is often intentionally misleading in their stories. While playing that game night not exactly be a lie it is pretty damned unethical.
Click to expand...


Yep ... and the most recent intentionally misleading story was published by no other than the NYT: New allegations against Kavanaugh.
 
Barnacle said:
Yep ... and the most recent intentionally misleading story was published by no other than the NYT: New allegations against Kavanaugh.
Click to expand...

The handling of Kavanaugh from day one has been a prime example of this kind of agenda driven media narrative. Frankly, I'm a little surprised that the bastards haven't learned their lesson on this kind of thing yet.
 
Lutherf said:
Here's the problem with "fake news" -

The recent CNN story about the US spy that got pulled out of Russia made it sound like the reasoning was that the IC didn't trust Trump. The said something along the lines of, "sources tell us that Trump's handling of classified material was part of the concern" and then went on to write a piece that, if given a cursory read, would lead the reader to the conclusion that Trump was the PRIMARY reason for the exfiltration.

There really wasn't anything "fake" about the CNN story. It's just that the whole thing was wrapped up in a giant burrito of bull**** and omissions. Unless one took the time to read the entire article, question one or two of the comments in the article and then do their own check on the totality of the facts and circumstances they would be left with an impression that didn't reflect the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...

If I rephrase your post as


"If you don't bother to put out the effort to actually find out what is actually happening, then you are going to be suckered into believing what someone who has told you you have to believe what they tell you tells you."​

PLEASE NOTE - I did not specify any particular source, political party, or political leaning in the above. I didn't do that because you are going to find someone who tells you that you have to believe what they tell you REGARDLESS of which source, political party, or political leaning you (and that "someone") have.
 
Lutherf said:
Not just lazy people. The media is often intentionally misleading in their stories. While playing that game night not exactly be a lie it is pretty damned unethical.
Click to expand...

News media are NOT in the business of selling "ethics", they are in the business of selling "advertising space".

If it is not illegal and it turns a profit, then it is "ethical" according to the reason that the news media is in business.

If it makes MORE of a profit, it is MORE "ethical" and if makes LESS of a profit, it is LESS "ethical".
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
If I rephrase your post as


"If you don't bother to put out the effort to actually find out what is actually happening, then you are going to be suckered into believing what someone who has told you you have to believe what they tell you tells you."​

PLEASE NOTE - I did not specify any particular source, political party, or political leaning in the above. I didn't do that because you are going to find someone who tells you that you have to believe what they tell you REGARDLESS of which source, political party, or political leaning you (and that "someone") have.
Click to expand...

The media shenanigans aren't limited to one political lean or another. Some sources produce a better quality product than others but bias is present in most outlets.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
News media are NOT in the business of selling "ethics", they are in the business of selling "advertising space".

If it is not illegal and it turns a profit, then it is "ethical" according to the reason that the news media is in business.

If it makes MORE of a profit, it is MORE "ethical" and if makes LESS of a profit, it is LESS "ethical".
Click to expand...

I totally agree about advertising dollars but one should be able to be ethical AND informative.
 
Lutherf said:
The media shenanigans aren't limited to one political lean or another
Click to expand...

I sort of thought that I might possibly have said something that kinda hinted at that as being at least a remote possibility.

Lutherf said:
Some sources produce a better quality product than others but bias is present in most outlets.
Click to expand...

Yep, and one way of dealing with that is to compare stories as they are reported by different sources (including sources that you don't like because "They don't tell it like it REALLY is.").
 
Lutherf said:
I totally agree about advertising dollars but one should be able to be ethical AND informative.
Click to expand...

Some sources do come pretty close. UPI, AP, CP, AFP, and Reuters, as "reportorial agencies do because their markets depend a whole lot more on accuracy than the "East Cupcake Daily Bugle, Telegraph, Bulletin, and __[fill in the blank]__ Reporter" does. There are also individual outlets that have a bit more concern with ensuring that what they release is as little slanted as possible (the "Christian Science Monitor" is one that springs to mind). An indication (well, one of them, at any rate) is whether or not people tend to rely on the outlet in order to try to make a lot of money.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Some sources do come pretty close. UPI, AP, CP, AFP, and Reuters, as "reportorial agencies do because their markets depend a whole lot more on accuracy than the "East Cupcake Daily Bugle, Telegraph, Bulletin, and __[fill in the blank]__ Reporter" does. There are also individual outlets that have a bit more concern with ensuring that what they release is as little slanted as possible (the "Christian Science Monitor" is one that springs to mind). An indication (well, one of them, at any rate) is whether or not people tend to rely on the outlet in order to try to make a lot of money.
Click to expand...

And, some sources are horrendously bad. Even when once specific article is correct, only the most gullible would use them as a source. pjmedia, daily caller, the sun, and rt.com are to name a few.
 
RAMOSS said:
And, some sources are horrendously bad. Even when once specific article is correct, only the most gullible would use them as a source. pjmedia, daily caller, the sun, and rt.com are to name a few.
Click to expand...

One checks "The Sun" just to make sure that it has included "Page 3" and, of course, one should always consult "RT" in order to find out what the latest version of the currently operative, officially sanctioned, "Team Vlad" approved, truth-of-the-day is. One of the things one learns over time is that you can learn almost as much from what someone does NOT say as what they do say.
 
Dont activate that CBC chat bot- it will bombard you with endless advertisements for hockey, poutine, and Justin Bieber music.
 
PoS said:
Dont activate that CBC chat bot- it will bombard you with endless advertisements for hockey, poutine, and Justin Bieber music.
Click to expand...

Only if Canada's secret infiltration software detects that you are based in the United States of America.

WARNING!!! Attempts to defeat Canada's secret infiltration software will erase all of your stored music mp3s and replace them with Celeine Dion, Lorne Greene, William Shatner, and Chief Dan George recordings WHICH YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DELETE and which will play automatically whenever you hit either of the "a', "e", "i", "o", or "u" keys.

To preserve your sanity, should you be silly enough to attempt to defeat Canada's secret infiltration software y wll b frcd t pst lk ths nd wll hv t rff t yr cntry s th ntd stts f mrc.
 
Lutherf said:
The handling of Kavanaugh from day one has been a prime example of this kind of agenda driven media narrative. Frankly, I'm a little surprised that the bastards haven't learned their lesson on this kind of thing yet.
Click to expand...
They have learned their lesson. The lesson is that there is little accountability and high rewards for spreading progressive propaganda. Why should they stop?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Lutherf said:
Here's the problem with "fake news" -

The recent CNN story about the US spy that got pulled out of Russia made it sound like the reasoning was that the IC didn't trust Trump. The said something along the lines of, "sources tell us that Trump's handling of classified material was part of the concern" and then went on to write a piece that, if given a cursory read, would lead the reader to the conclusion that Trump was the PRIMARY reason for the exfiltration.

There really wasn't anything "fake" about the CNN story. It's just that the whole thing was wrapped up in a giant burrito of bull**** and omissions. Unless one took the time to read the entire article, question one or two of the comments in the article and then do their own check on the totality of the facts and circumstances they would be left with an impression that didn't reflect the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...

Leaving out the reason for the extraction would have been poor journalism. Who, what, where and WHY is the basis of a good news article. Unless you have better sources for why a valuable agent for a decade was removed I would not complain about this. You have to admit Trump has already revealed classified info to the Russians.. You also have got to wonder what was so funny...... (photo courtesy of the Kremlin since U.S news teams were banned from this meeting)

1c2d705a-36f4-11e7-8663-b22bc7352b12_1280x720_173850.jpg
 
Last edited:
trouble13 said:
They have learned their lesson. The lesson is that there is little accountability and high rewards for spreading progressive propaganda. Why should they stop?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Actually, it would be more correct to say
The lesson is that there is little accountability and high rewards for spreading -progressive- _any type of_ propaganda _so why_ -. Why- should they stop?".​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom