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: 4, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday January 07 2017, @05:31AM
Well, the major outlets are owned by entertainment companies, and fucking Fox actually went to court over--and won--the right to lie through their teeth. Reagan's FCC got rid of the Fairness Doctrine almost 30 years ago. If anyone is surprised by where we've ended up, raise your hand...and then smack yourself with it.
Sometimes the only winning move is not to play. I can only hope this leads, sooner rather than later, to the entire propaganda-entertainment-"news" complex collapsing under its own weight, poisoned by the accumulation of its own metabolic toxins.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @06:41AM
> and fucking Fox actually went to court over--and won--the right to lie through their teeth.
Nope. [snopes.com]
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday January 07 2017, @11:53AM
Ah, you're trying to debunk fake news ("a court decided that Fox News has the right to lie") using facts (the page you linked). The summary says this doesn't work.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @01:56PM
But Snopes is a known biased source! If they say it's false, it must be true!
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Saturday January 07 2017, @03:22PM
I read the snopes article, but the way I remember it it was different: not about these two reporters' conflict with Fox, but
about another Fox reporter or anchor, a man (I don't remember his name) who escaped from a lawsuit because the court accepted his plea that he was insane and not able to tell the truth, or something.
So the Snopes link that you used debunks *something else*. I'm quite sure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @04:09PM
Are you seriously trying to argue that your random memory of some unnamed trial is what everybody is actually talking about when they say fox went to court for the right to lie?
Really? Come on man, at least put in a few minutes and google up whatever you think you remember.
Because just posting "I think you're wrong" is so unpersuasive that you might as well not even bother.
Or did you just post it to make yourself feel better? No, I mean it. Writing it out and posting it reinforces it in your own head. Its a way to deny facts that conflict with your worldview. Cognitive dissonance in action.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Saturday January 07 2017, @04:48PM
I just googled it. Can't find it anymore. All the hits are about the Akre and Wilson case, and why and how that was debunked.
Odd.. It's long ago though, more than 10 years ago.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @06:25PM
Or.,. it never happened.
You can exclude terms from google searches with the negative boolean operator.
-akre -wilson
Have at it.