What is FAKE NEWS?

[HonestJoe]

Does anyone have a non biased non politically charged definition of what FAKE NEWS is?

I’m not sure the term has ever had a clear definition because pretty much as soon as it came in to common use it was co-opted by different people for various purposes.

I think initially it referred to the various “satire” websites which intentionally hide the fact they’re satire, even sometimes faking the appearance of mainstream websites. The articles they published were often about real people and organisations but either gross exaggerations of the truth or completely made up.

One of the confusions with the term “fake news” is the growing trend of many generally legitimate sites, with an intention to publish true news (even if it’s presented with a political bias), generating a lot of material by simply copy-pasting news from other sources, carrying out few if any checks on them. Some so-called “news aggregators” generate 100% of their content by simply copying from other sources, sometimes even automatically and they don’t always make it very clear that’s what they’re doing (even adding their own fake by-lines to their copied content). These sites can easier get caught out by the “satire” sites and end up publishing the “fake news”, especially when it presented their political opponents in a negative manner as much of the “satire” often would. With so many sites copy-pasting from each other like this, a single fake story could get all over the place very quickly, even in to nominally mainstream sources.

There are also plenty of sources which will largely base their stories on real information but will sometimes twist and spin extensively, again in line with political bias. The mixture of mostly legitimate stories and exaggerated spin makes it very difficult for the casual reader to know what is true and again, the stories will be copied by other sites and aggregators without this context.

Unfortunately, in an effort to keep up with all the on-line competition, a lot of the traditional print and TV media seem to be engaging in the same behaviour, taking stories from websites and doing little or no independent journalism before reporting them. Sadly they’re discovering that dramatic and salacious stories are what sells and whether they’re actually true or not is becoming less and less important to their consumers.

This is really a problem that has been developing and growing for some years now, steadily getting worse as the prospects for traditional media continues its downturn and the number of “news” websites of various forms continue to grow. It only really caught mainstream attention with its involvement in the US Presidential election but I fear the real problems of mass media are already getting forgotten in the rush to make political and financial capital, from the very top down.

 

[haymarket]

If you are referring to the part about the "fake news" that Russia has compromising information on Trump, yes, I agree. That is definitely fake news.

And why is it fake news?

 

[haymarket]

Could you be more specific as to the premise you are referencing...??

Sure - the term FAKE NEWS had been previously applied to news stories that were purposely put out by people who knew that they were not true but invented them to deceive others. The story that Trump is calling FAKE NEWS is different and does not follow those qualities.

 

[haymarket]

I’m not sure the term has ever had a clear definition because pretty much as soon as it came in to common use it was co-opted by different people for various purposes.

I think initially it referred to the various “satire” websites which intentionally hide the fact they’re satire, even sometimes faking the appearance of mainstream websites. The articles they published were often about real people and organisations but either gross exaggerations of the truth or completely made up.

One of the confusions with the term “fake news” is the growing trend of many generally legitimate sites, with an intention to publish true news (even if it’s presented with a political bias), generating a lot of material by simply copy-pasting news from other sources, carrying out few if any checks on them. Some so-called “news aggregators” generate 100% of their content by simply copying from other sources, sometimes even automatically and they don’t always make it very clear that’s what they’re doing (even adding their own fake by-lines to their copied content). These sites can easier get caught out by the “satire” sites and end up publishing the “fake news”, especially when it presented their political opponents in a negative manner as much of the “satire” often would. With so many sites copy-pasting from each other like this, a single fake story could get all over the place very quickly, even in to nominally mainstream sources.

There are also plenty of sources which will largely base their stories on real information but will sometimes twist and spin extensively, again in line with political bias. The mixture of mostly legitimate stories and exaggerated spin makes it very difficult for the casual reader to know what is true and again, the stories will be copied by other sites and aggregators without this context.

Unfortunately, in an effort to keep up with all the on-line competition, a lot of the traditional print and TV media seem to be engaging in the same behaviour, taking stories from websites and doing little or no independent journalism before reporting them. Sadly they’re discovering that dramatic and salacious stories are what sells and whether they’re actually true or not is becoming less and less important to their consumers.

This is really a problem that has been developing and growing for some years now, steadily getting worse as the prospects for traditional media continues its downturn and the number of “news” websites of various forms continue to grow. It only really caught mainstream attention with its involvement in the US Presidential election but I fear the real problems of mass media are already getting forgotten in the rush to make political and financial capital, from the very top down.

Thank you for a well thought and rather thorough reply.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

And why is it fake news?

Because it isn't true. I know people really wanted to believe the "golden shower" stuff but c'mon.

 

[devildavid]

When They present their opinions as facts it becomes a problem for everyone

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Give an example of that. All their analysis of news involves opinion. The reporting of events sometimes involves speculation on causes and motives, but we can discern that for ourselves.

 

[haymarket]

Because it isn't true. I know people really wanted to believe the "golden shower" stuff but c'mon.

For it to be FAKE NEWS does the story have to be simply wrong in part?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

InfoWars, Drudge, Salon, etc.

Drudge is a clearing house of links to other sites. how is it, itself, "fake news"?

 

[Jack Fabulous]

For it to be FAKE NEWS does the story have to be simply wrong in part?

I am unaware of any official definition of the term "fake news" so your question is a non sequitur.

 

[HonestJoe]

Because it isn't true. I know people really wanted to believe the "golden shower" stuff but c'mon.

It is true that someone wrote a report claiming Russia had compromising material on Trump, it’s true the people from the intelligence services formally informed Trump about that report and it’s true that a website has apparently published the contents of that report. The truth of the actually allegations is unknown at the moment.

It’d be perfectly possible to write an entirely accurate and truthful article about all of this and I’m sure a few outlets have done. It’s also possible to write highly a speculative and dishonest article based on the same core facts, something some outlets most certainly have. It’d be possible to write something using made-up claims that don’t even appear in the actual report. By pretty much any reasonable definition, “fake news” is determined by the nature and quality of an individual article. It can’t be attributed to an entire event or incident.

 

[Slyfox696]

I find it fascinating how quickly Republicans have grabbed the term "fake news" and have twisted to simply mean "anything I don't like". Truly breathtaking how quickly that happened.

Incorrect news is not fake news. It CAN be fake news, but it isn't definitively fake news. "Fake News" (a term I hate) refers to intentionally fabricated articles, articles which never had a shred of truth behind them, nor any sources actually reporting. Fake News is what the Onion does, though they at least have the integrity to admit it. Many other sites do not and create fake news for more nefarious purposes.

Reporting what a source said is not fake and most real news outlets qualify their reporting with "Sources say". The report could be wrong or mistaken, but it is not fake. It was created based on actual happenings, even if what was reported by the source wasn't true.

This is what so many Republicans (at least, I see it primarily in Trump supporters) don't understand. They seem to think anything they don't like is now "fake news". And if a report is wrong, they gleefully do a jig and smugly declare, "I told you so". But the people who do that are wrong and they are stupid or dishonest. Fake news is the intentional fabrication of stories without any truth behind them. That is not the same thing as incorrect news.

 

[MaggieD]

Does anyone have a non biased non politically charged definition of what FAKE NEWS is? I had thought that it referred to the presentation of material that the writer or presenter knew was false but was disguised and presented in such a way as to fool the reader that it was a legitimate news story.

But in the last 24 hours we see the term applied to a news story which parts could be immediately verified as truthful although the content that could be verified was not intended as false.

So what is your unpolitical charged definition of what FAKE NEWS is?

My personal definition would be a few fold.

#1 -- Rumor and innuendo.
#2 -- Unverified detail presented as fact.
#3 -- Blogs and Op Eds presented alongside real news on news websites.
#4 -- Sensational headlines for click bait value. "Chaos at Sessions confirmation hearings" is a real-life example I saw yesterday.
#5 -- Lying by omission.

When major outlets are fighting to survive and resort to these scummy tactics? Our republic isn't safe. In the tradition of Life Alert, then, "We aren't safe."

 

[Manc Skipper]

The onion does satire. not fake news, which is broadly speaking a new dumbed down, easier to spell term for propaganda.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

It is true that someone wrote a report claiming Russia had compromising material on Trump, it’s true the people from the intelligence services formally informed Trump about that report and it’s true that a website has apparently published the contents of that report. The truth of the actually allegations is unknown at the moment.

It’d be perfectly possible to write an entirely accurate and truthful article about all of this and I’m sure a few outlets have done. It’s also possible to write highly a speculative and dishonest article based on the same core facts, something some outlets most certainly have. It’d be possible to write something using made-up claims that don’t even appear in the actual report. By pretty much any reasonable definition, “fake news” is determined by the nature and quality of an individual article. It can’t be attributed to an entire event or incident.

This "report" has been circulating for almost a year. It's garbage.

 

[Thoreau72]

Does anyone have a non biased non politically charged definition of what FAKE NEWS is? I had thought that it referred to the presentation of material that the writer or presenter knew was false but was disguised and presented in such a way as to fool the reader that it was a legitimate news story.

But in the last 24 hours we see the term applied to a news story which parts could be immediately verified as truthful although the content that could be verified was not intended as false.

So what is your unpolitical charged definition of what FAKE NEWS is?

I think there can be varieties of fake news. The most obvious is news about an event that did not happen at all, a completely fabricated story.

Another variation would be about an event that did happen, but some or many of the details about the story are incorrect, incomplete or otherwise misleading. And many variations in between.

The purpose of fake news is to manipulate the public perception in any number of ways.

For example, John Kennedy was certainly killed by gunfire, in Dallas. That is the only part that is not fake.

All the other details are bogus.

 

[Conservative]

And what is the difference between that and simply poor reporting?

CNN used unsubstantiated reports to grab headlines and influence opinion. Poor reporting is normally unintentional.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

CNN used unsubstantiated reports to grab headlines and influence opinion. Poor reporting is normally unintentional.

Exactly, if its telling you how to feel its not news.

 

[JackA]

"Fake News" in my mind, would just be a news story circulating that is false.

Examples:
Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta Involved in Satanic 'Spirit Cooking' : snopes.com

Did Donald Trump Appoint Sarah Palin as a Science Advisor? : snopes.com

Or any conspiracy website out there like InfoWars.

Right. Or Donald Trump announcing he sent investigators to Hawaii who uncovered proof that Obama was born in Kenya.

 

[haymarket]

I am unaware of any official definition of the term "fake news" so your question is a non sequitur.

And that is what we are trying to talk about here without the political loaded bias.

 

[reinoe]

And that is what we are trying to talk about here without the political loaded bias.

Fake news is pretty obvious to spot.

1. Does it come from CNN?
If yes it's fake news if no move on to question 2...

2. Is it true?
If yes move on to question three, if no it's fake news...

3. Is there unnecessary slant, bias, or misrepresentation in the story?
If yes it's fake news, if no then move on to question 4...

4. Were there pertinent details missing from the story?
If yes, it's fake news if no then the story is actually news.

I've found that the MSM cannot go through these four questions most of the time. And while often it's easy to spot the MSM tripping up on 2 and 3, the hardest part is "4". Discovering pertinent details that are relevant but excluded. This is the major failing of the MSM, selectively choosing what to report. This is why the MSM is broken. Always reference multiple news sources and always try to locate international presses for information. Our national media is a disgrace and you'll be shocked to find what gets left out sometimes.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

And that is what we are trying to talk about here without the political loaded bias.

It appears as though you are "trying" to portray what happened over the past couple of days as "not fake news". The story was bunk. The report the story was based on was false. No golden showers. No Micheal Cohen meeting with Russian agents in Prague. All bunk.

Whether you call it "fake news", rumor, tabloid fodder, whatever... it really doesn't matter to me.

 

[HonestJoe]

This "report" has been circulating for almost a year. It's garbage.

Quite possibly. It’s still true that it’s been published on a website and that been discussed by the President Elect and the intelligence agencies. Reporting those facts isn’t “fake news” by any reasonable definition (you can question whether it’s important or worthy news but that’s a different issue).

 

[haymarket]

It appears as though you are "trying" to portray what happened over the past couple of days as "not fake news". The story was bunk. The report the story was based on was false. No golden showers. No Micheal Cohen meeting with Russian agents in Prague. All bunk.

Whether you call it "fake news", rumor, tabloid fodder, whatever... it really doesn't matter to me.

Great.

And I stated quite clearly in the OP that it was the likely misuse of the term in the last few days which prompted this thread.

If the term is so o very broad as to include half the stuff some right leaning posters have posted here - the term has lost its meaning in an effort to politically tar ones opponents.

And that is inane as it destroys the true meaning of the term FAKE NEWS.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

Great.

And I stated quite clearly in the OP that it was the likely misuse of the term in the last few days which prompted this thread.

If the term is so o very broad as to include half the stuff some right leaning posters have posted here - the term has lost its meaning in an effort to politically tar ones opponents.

And that is inane as it destroys the true meaning of the term FAKE NEWS.

There is no "true meaning" of the term "fake news". THAT is the point. The term started being bandied about by disgruntled Hillary supporters as a reason for why she lost the election. THOSE people didn't define it either. They applied it to the multitude of reports that cast Hillary in a negative light whether they were partially true, not true at all, misleading, or a combination of all three. What has happened with the term since is simply a case of "what's good for the goose..."

Fake news has pretty much become a buzz word for anything politically driven. We used to call that propaganda. Same thing, different name.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

Quite possibly. It’s still true that it’s been published on a website and that been discussed by the President Elect and the intelligence agencies. Reporting those facts isn’t “fake news” by any reasonable definition (you can question whether it’s important or worthy news but that’s a different issue).

The stories about Obama being a secret Muslim were published on websites too but I don't recall CNN running with it.