Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday April 25 2017, @10:14AM   Printer-friendly
from the honesty-is-the-absence-of-the-intent-to-deceive dept.

[...] what exactly is "fake news" and what effect is it having globally?

"I think there is a fundamental problem that fake news became a catch-all term to mean anything that we don't particularly like to read," explained Alexios Mantzarlis, who heads the international fact-checking network at the Poynter Institute.

[...] Renate Schroeder, director of the European Federation of Journalists, said countries "should be extremely prudent" and seek to balance freedom of expression and freedom of the press with combating hate speech and fake news.

Any effort to regulate social media should not go too far, either, since it can lead to censorship, she said.

"Our view is [that] to fight such propaganda, to fight such fake news, we need to invest in journalism. We need to invest in media pluralism. We need to invest in media literacy," Schroeder told Al Jazeera.

[...] Only 32 percent of people in the US said they had a great deal or a fair amount of confidence in the media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" in 2016, according to a Gallup poll. That is the lowest level recorded in Gallup polling history – the question has been asked annually since 1997 – and eight points lower than in 2015.

Trust in media declined overall across all EU countries in 2015, a European Broadcasting Union survey also reported.

Mantzarlis of the Poynter Institute said that to fight the fake news phenomenon, journalists should promote greater transparency in their work, and develop a robust corrections policy when mistakes do occur.

That may include "making [corrections] more detailed, explaining why the error was made, who made it within the newsroom, and how exactly the existing procedures failed," he said.

Schroeder added that the focus on fake news could potentially serve as a catalyst to reinvigorate the field of journalism.

Idea #3: Stop helping politicians cheat at debates. Idea #4: Stop reprinting corporate press releases as 'news.' Idea #5: Stop shilling.

Your ideas, Soylent?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by zocalo on Tuesday April 25 2017, @12:59PM (6 children)

    by zocalo (302) on Tuesday April 25 2017, @12:59PM (#499257)
    If so, then Looorg has a valid point. There's a place for opinion in the media, and it's under a big banner that says "Editorial", and ideally accompanied by a disclaimer about being solely the views of the author as well. MSM has been blurring the line between pure journalism (the facts of a story) and editorials (an opinion on a story) for far too long, and that's part of the reason why there's so little trust in the media. Far too many people, for whatever reason, are unwilling or unable to separate fact from opinion, to properly grade claimed "facts" between "verifiable" and "hearsay", or to seek alternative sources to verify things they are unsure on.

    As an example, consider the fact that the US currently has the Carl Vinson carrier group approaching the Korean peninsula and how that has been blended with opinion to create the "news", which depending on your source might be any of the following:

    * US re-positions for stronger enforcement of UN sanctions against the DPRK, reinforces allies.
    * US sends message to the DPRK, reassures allies.
    * US actions unhelpful in bringing the DPRK back to the negotiating table.
    * US provokes DPRK, further escalation of tensions in the region likely.
    * DPRK ready to sink US carrier and annihilate the imperialist scum with our nuclear weapons!

    All of those report the fact of the carrier group's pending arrival, but they also all include some very biased opinions that are far too typical in MSM at present, and it's almost a given that none of them are going to report fairly on the various angles of the story giving time to the views of the US, the DPRK, and all the other nations in the region - especially China, Japan and South Korea. It's not just the Korean peninsula that needs a DMZ; if they want the trust of their readers/viewers back, then MSM needs to re-establish the one they used to at least try to have between journalism and editorialism.
    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @02:54PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @02:54PM (#499317)

    All those headlines and most media failed to mention that the ship was heading to Australia anyway. And when it does eventually get to NK it's replacing another carrier thats leaving the area, not an extra one anyway. So MSM need to pull their collective heads out from their asses.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by captain normal on Tuesday April 25 2017, @03:59PM (4 children)

    by captain normal (2205) on Tuesday April 25 2017, @03:59PM (#499348)

    Have to admit that I am not really sure what you were trying to say.
    My on memory of the events regarding the Vinson carrier group is that POTUS declared he was sending a "huge armada" to North Korea. A day or so later it was MSM that revealed that the carrier group was on a standard rotation of the western Pacific and would eventually station in the Sea Of Japan so the current carrier group between the Korean Peninsula and Japan could head to home port.
    So what was the "fake news"? Mainstream Media reporting on what the President said? Then later on what was found when they looked for more background on that story?

    --
    When life isn't going right, go left.
    • (Score: 2) by zocalo on Tuesday April 25 2017, @05:17PM (3 children)

      by zocalo (302) on Tuesday April 25 2017, @05:17PM (#499405)
      The clue's in the title; "Opinions are not news". It was an example of how a given journalistic fact that's currently getting a lot of coverage - the routine redeployment of the Vinson carrier group - could be spun into any number of opinions via the introduction of editorial bias into the (theoretically) neutral journalism. The term "Fake News" is not just applied to stories that are outright falsehoods, but also things that are based on truth but spun to present a given agenda, or to try and label a story that disgrees with a preferred agenda in order to reduce its impact, and better segregation between the two might help MSM reestablish some of the trust and journalistic integrity they have lost.
      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @05:29PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @05:29PM (#499415)

        So your complaint is that people analyze the news?

        I don't know about you, but I am not an expert in anything outside of my profession. News reporting that goes no further than the bare facts is about as meaningful to me as reading scientific research papers on anerobic nitrogen fixing by legumes.

        • (Score: 2) by zocalo on Tuesday April 25 2017, @10:34PM (1 child)

          by zocalo (302) on Tuesday April 25 2017, @10:34PM (#499643)
          No, my "complaint" is that the line between reporting the facts and presenting opinions as such has been blurred to the point that it's becoming harder for people to tell where one ends and the other starts, basically, what I'm suggesting is that MSM needs to reinforce the line between journalism and editorialism again. By all means have the editorials (they're often a useful way to gain insights into what parties with a different point of view are thinking after all), but make it clearer that's what they are - a point of view - and where that point of view is coming from. Wherever possible they should also present multiple points of view and give them equal space to help remove potential for bias; what does a representative of each main involved faction have to say?

          To re-use the example of my different slants on the Vinson carrier group's redeployment, it's the difference between explaining what various terms might mean to help understanding vs. presenting the facts from a single specific viewpoint to the exclusion of others, and possibly even just one faction within that party. The issue isn't with going into background such as what a carrier group actually is and does (or what anerobic nitrogen fixing is, in your example), it's the way they are presenting the facts to reinforce a given agenda, without presenting alternative points of view on equal terms - or at all.
          --
          UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @11:13PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @11:13PM (#499674)

            > To re-use the example of my different slants on the Vinson carrier group's redeployment,

            It isn't much of an example since you haven't actually provided any ... examples.
            You claim this "blurring" not only exists but is so common that its difficult for people to even discern it.
            So actual examples must abound. Lets see a couple.