Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday June 01 2017, @12:02AM   Printer-friendly
from the can-you-believe-it? dept.

A story in The Conversation may be of interest to Soylentils:

"Fake news" is the buzzword of 2017. Barely a day goes by without a headline about president Donald Trump lambasting media "bias", or the spread of "alternative facts".

Many articles on the subject suggest that social media sites should do more to educate the public about misinformation, or that readers should think more critically about the sources of news stories before sharing them. But there are fundamental problems with this. First, there isn't a clear definition of what "fake news" really is. And second, it overlooks important aspects of people's psychological makeup.

"Fake news" can be classified in a number of ways and represented as a series of concentric circles. First, in the centre of the concentric model, we have actual fake news. These are the stories that we commonly see shared on sites such as News Thump and The Onion. These satirical stories are written for comedic purposes and are put together to entertain.

Next, we have propaganda articles. Typically, these pieces do not actually contain any real news value. They may, for example, detail an individual's past behaviour and suggest that that it reflects something about their current intentions. Alternatively, these pieces may contain some kernel of truth, but this may be twisted in such a way that it totally misleads audiences and misrepresents a story's true news value.

These propaganda articles take numerous forms. The Huffington Post, for example, included a caveat about Donald Trump's alleged bigotry whenever mentioning him in a story before the US election last November, while British readers will likely recall the Daily Mail's much-maligned attacks on former Labour leader Ed Miliband's late father in 2013, calling him a "man who hated Britain".

Finally, and occupying the outermost ring of the model, there are the stories that are technically true, but reflect the subtle editorial biases of the organisation publishing them. This reporting is commonplace within the mainstream media, through selective storytelling and politically-driven editorials. Whether this is reflected in the left-wing bias of The Guardian or the right-wing approach of the Murdoch media empire, this practice is less malicious and more a political interpretation of events.

There once was a precise word for the term "fake news" is trying to describe. Oh yes, it's "propaganda."


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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @12:20AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2017, @12:20AM (#519121)

    Those of us who do not watch/read it find it repulsive. I mean I am actually revolted by 'the news'. Once you are out of the boiling water you notice it sucks in there. The tricks used to keep you coming back become blatant and obvious to see. The 'savvy' folks do not see it that way. They see themselves as informed. It is part of our brains tricking us into thinking things are 'ok'. Our bias and cognitive dissonance will make us their bitch.

    Today my boss stopped a meeting to tell everyone that Trump backed the US out of the eco deal in europe. WHO CARES. That has about 0 effect on me. However the meeting we are having DOES affect me a lot. He sees himself as media savvy and informed. I took one look at it and saw Trump backing out of a 'take it or leave it' deal. He however sees it as a terrible thing just as it was framed in the 'news'. We *literally* see 2 different things. He sees a terrible person doing terrible things as told to him every day. I see it as someone using the walk away negotiating technique. I see a different view because I am not listening to the ongoing drone of 'news'. I see the news being manipulative in its style and language. He does not see that at all. I turned it all off about 18 years ago. At first you feel cast off and alone. But then you notice things. You see the hyperbolic language. The insentient opinion puff pieces as 'not news' presented as news. People want to pretend this is a 'new' thing. It has been going on for a long time. Even long before I quit the news.

    Sometimes to get perspective you need to step away and come back to it. Once you 'see it' though it is tough to go back. It is like realizing you are breathing or you can see your nose. It takes awhile for your mind to 'put it back'.

    Also from someone with the 'external' perspective Trump is *playing* news orgs. He does slightly crazy things and all they do is talk about him. It is seriously amazing to watch. I see the trick played out at least 1-2 times a week by him. The 'media' eats it up. For a group that speak 'the truth' they sure let anyone make up their narratives. Slight misspellings become weeks of discussion. It tells me they are devoid of anything serious to say.

    Also to be fair my bias is showing too. I think the news is a bunch of lying douchbags. Thought it for years. I long ago went on a quest to find bias free news. It does not exist. They all have it.

    Also the term 'fake news' was invented as a mind worm. It allows people to decide if they do not like something they can call it 'fake news'. It is weapons grade persuasion. They just did not realize the other side could pick it up and use it against them. They drop these sorts of mind worms all the time. Basically they are A/B tested to make sure you treat them as the truth and everyone else as full of shit. It allows them to control you even when you are not around. It allows them to teach you how to act the way they want you to act with out them telling you how. You make the decision they want you to make all because they gave you mental tools to guard your cognitive bias. You pull someone out of their safety zone they usually react badly.