SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
I found an interesting article on fivethirtyeight.com about fake news and how to address it. It's a long article but worth the read. This bit is near the end:
Media outlets keep trying to debunk fake news. This won't work, particularly for readers who have already decided that the traditional press is fake news — and, fair or not, partisan. Research suggests that the more partisan a topic, the more likely people who identify strongly with one side will double down on their argument even if they are presented with facts that counter it.
Maybe, instead, the media should do a better job of distinguishing real news from fake news, to regain readers' trust. Click-based advertising has left us adrift in a sea of inaccurate, sensational headlines, even at legitimate news outlets; this makes it easier for dramatic fake news headlines to survive. Aggregation has us spreading stories with no original research or corroboration, and it makes everyone look bad when outlets fall for fake bait. Over the holidays, a heartwarming story about a Santa Claus who visited a child's deathbed went viral. Three days later, the Knoxville News Sentinel, which originally published the story, retracted it, but not before it had spread to CNN, Fox, USA Today and more.
Maybe the news should stop trying so hard to entertain.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @03:06AM
Yeah! Listen to Runaway on this, 'cause he's consumed more fake news than almost anyone here! That makes him kind of an expert.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 07 2017, @03:31AM
LOL - there's a difference between "consume" and "evaluate". I called the recent election way back in the summer. There were still a couple republicans hanging on, with slim hopes of beating Trump, but I called the election then. Trump, by a slim margin. I evaluated all the fake news available, eliminated the bullshit, and called the election. You could have done the same.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @03:36AM
Man are you full of yourself.
You had a 50/50 chance of picking the right candidate.
You won the coin-toss. That doesn't make you a critical thinker.
In fact, claiming that winning the coin-toss makes you a critical thinker pretty much proves you are not a critical thinker.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @03:46AM
Runaway is his own fake news! In fact, I don't think he is Runaway at all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @06:59AM
Consume, evaluate, or be infiltrated by. Runaway is an example of the latter. He does not even know what "the latter" is, so pro tip, it means "the last one". Why cannot college-educated peoples speak in language that Runaway can understand? It is cruel. But back to the point. Fake news has worked so well on Runaway that he thinks he is critically evaluating news! How sick is that? But it is the ultimate success of propaganda: the victims themselves insist on the truth of what they are being fed! Fake news so fake that it cannot be fake! And dupes so stupid that they cannot tell the difference! And if anyone should try to correct them, there is always the "liberal educated elites with things like truth and facts, who are trying to deceive us!" innoculation. Runaway is so deep into this that I do not think he can be reached. His reality is so far detached from real American that he is now serving Russians. And the more we try to save him, the more he will see us as the "mainstream liberal fake-news media". So the only thing we can do is deport his ass. His only claim to being an American is that he was born on American soil. He probably will claim that his parents were citizens, but the only reason they were is that they were dropped on American soil. Ultimately, Runaways is the fourth or fifth generation anchor baby, and I am sure that the Quapaw will be happy to get rid of him.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 07 2017, @04:30AM
Doing it once, no. I've called it correctly nine times in a row though. Make of that what you will.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @03:30PM
And I called it 12 times in a row!
No, make that 20 times!
I'm a genius!
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday January 07 2017, @07:50PM
If he called it in the summer, it was better than 50/50... Trump wasn't the sure candidate until later: he was running against others in his own party.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1) by toddestan on Saturday January 07 2017, @08:23PM
By last summer Trump had clenched the nomination. I suppose there was the chance that there would be some shenanigans at the convention, but by the rules he unstoppable number of delegates. So barring some highly unlikely circumstances we all knew who the candidates were going to be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @09:28PM
You will note he never actually called anything.
He's provided no links to him claiming trump will win.
Its all just post-hoc rationalizing.
Much like Trump claiming he was against the iraqi war and citing interviews from like a year after it had already started.