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) by GungnirSniper on Saturday January 07 2017, @08:19AM
What was all of this supposed 'lot of propaganda'? I'm still waiting for specifics.
The bits we know are that Hillary used a non-government email account for government business, and her helldesk IT guy was an absolute idiot [theverge.com] for telling John Podesta the spear phishing email he got was legitimate.
Simply receiving a phishing email is not a reason to change one's password so I am not buying this "very unfortunate typo" garbage. It sounds like an MCSE wasn't sure and overreacted to what should have been ignored and forgotten. It's not like others hadn't already been targeted by these attempts.
The goals of the run of "fake news" stories are to discredit President Trump before he's even in office, discredit non-MSM sources, and to deflect, ignore, and excuse the pitiful candidate and campaign ran by the Democratic Party.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @03:56PM
> What was all of this supposed 'lot of propaganda'? I'm still waiting for specifics.
Here's one prominent example. [thedailybeast.com]
And more:
https://www.rt.com/usa/355447-clinton-emails-state-department-foundation/ [rt.com]
https://www.rt.com/usa/355216-benghazi-hillary-clinton-sued/ [rt.com]
https://www.rt.com/usa/355047-clinton-stairs-health-problem/ [rt.com]
https://www.rt.com/usa/355407-clinton-trump-russia-putin/ [rt.com]
https://www.rt.com/usa/355302-hiroshima-nagasaki-democrats-history/ [rt.com]
http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160806/1044009769/clinton-obama-trum-election.html [sputniknews.com]
http://sputniknews.com/us/20160806/1043989721/khan-gried-exploited-war-ignored.html [sputniknews.com]
http://sputniknews.com/columnists/20160804/1043937453/hillary-clinton-war-queen.html [sputniknews.com]
> Simply receiving a phishing email is not a reason to change one's password
What a stupid thing to say.
You might as well say "when someone tries to con you that's not a reason to get conned!"
I really want to know what is going on in your head that you think what you wrote was sensible?
Its like you have no critical thinking ability at all. Why is your logic so impaired when it comes to this topic?
Really, have you no self awareness? What is going on in there? Should I just assume that this quality of reasoning is behind everything you post?