Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Tuesday June 27 2017, @02:48PM   Printer-friendly
from the who-watches-the-retractions dept.

From Breitbart:

Another day, another very fake news story from the network President Donald Trump has identified as "very fake news."

CNN's Thomas Frank on Thursday evening published what would have been considered an explosive report if remotely true: One anonymous source told him both the Treasury Department and Senate Intelligence Committee are probing a Russian investment fund with ties to several senior finance world leaders close to President Trump. Only problem? Both Trump administration officials and those close to Senate GOP leadership say it's simply untrue.

The retraction from CNN:

On June 22, 2017, CNN.com published a story connecting Anthony Scaramucci with investigations into the Russian Direct Investment Fund.
That story did not meet CNN's editorial standards and has been retracted. Links to the story have been disabled. CNN apologizes to Mr. Scaramucci.

According to BuzzFeed News, CNN has responded by actually requiring executives to review stories:

CNN is imposing strict new publishing restrictions for online articles involving Russia after the network deleted a story and then issued a retraction late Friday, according to an internal email obtained by BuzzFeed News.

The email went out at 11:21 a.m. on Saturday from Rich Barbieri, the CNNMoney executive editor, saying "No one should publish any content involving Russia without coming to me and Jason," a CNN vice president.

At least now we'll know who to blame.


[Ed Note: I debated leaving this in politics or dropping it to the main page. I opted for the latter because politics or not, the prevalence of "fake news" is one that we deal with on a daily basis from our respective social media feeds to all the major broadcast and cable news networks. How are we to tell what is "fake" and what is actually (relatively) "true"? The main stream media all put their spin on everything. A right slant for some, a left slant for others. Is the truth somewhere in between, or is it a story that we aren't getting becasue the mainstream media is so intent on telling their narrative that we the people are getting the shit end of the stick regardless of where we get the so called news?]

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This discussion has been archived.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: 4, Informative) by looorg on Tuesday June 27 2017, @03:57PM (8 children)

    by looorg (578) on Tuesday June 27 2017, @03:57PM (#531972)

    Overall I find issue with the whole "Fake news" thing, I still have not found a good definition of it. There used to be "none" but now there is barely a day without it. It seems to overall just like definition, or at least one that everyone can agree with. So everyone involved just seems to label anything they don't like or that contradicts them as fake news stories. Trumps fake news isn't CNNs fake news isn't FOX fake news etc. Perhaps it's now even about the "news" in itself but that the publisher of said news has lost, and is somehow trying to regain, the narrative of the story or whatever opinion in large it is that they want to purvey.

    Fake or fabricated news to me is still those magazines in the store with stories about celebrities alien love children, Elvis sightings and such things. That is fabricated "news". Which in turn is different from what CNN is peddling, or trying to, which is just agenda driven drivel disguised as news and if someone hadn't called them out on it they would never had retracted this, they tried to send it out there to see if someone would bite but they didn't so this was about to blow up in their face. The retraction was just, or became, preemptive damage control.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 27 2017, @05:30PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 27 2017, @05:30PM (#532029)

    Fake or fabricated news to me is still those magazines in the store

    Those are obvious examples to normal people, but there are political news stories that are entirely fabricated (1). Unsubstantiated news (such as this story or others: 2) is functionally equivalent to "fabricated news" because trust in journalism and the media in general is incredibly low.

    People fall for these stories because they employ motivated reasoning, which will bias them to only be skeptical of stories that do not fit their beliefs.

    Equating "biased news" with "fabricated" and "unsubstantiated" news dilutes the term "fake" and further entrenches people in their motivated reasoning (any story that I do not agree with must be fake).

    1. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/17/purveyor_of_fake_news_says_he_targeted_trump_supporters_influenced_election.html [slate.com]
    2. https://www.theroot.com/report-donald-trump-hired-prostitutes-to-pee-in-beds-h-1791134341 [theroot.com]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning [wikipedia.org]

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Tuesday June 27 2017, @09:42PM (6 children)

    The best definition of fake news that I've seen came in a presentation by Tom Nichols (cf. https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=19197&page=1&cid=500514#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] for details).

    He said:

    Fake news is a lie deliberately concocted from whole cloth, seeded out into the media-sphere through the Internet or the other willing minions out there, to pollute the public debate. Intentionally, knowingly a lie. it is not a bias story, It is not an erroneous story, It is not an error that can be retracted. It is not a story that was spun in a way you happen to not like. None of that is fake news. Fake news is an intentional lie, created to mislead people and then placed out into the information sphere so that you will find it.

    Source: https://www.c-span.org/video/?426290-1/tom-nichols-discusses-death-expertise [c-span.org] (at approximately 1:27).

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday June 28 2017, @02:39AM

      by kaszz (4211) on Wednesday June 28 2017, @02:39AM (#532253) Journal

      This is it:

      created to mislead people and then placed out into the information sphere so that you will find it.

    • (Score: 2) by G-forze on Thursday June 29 2017, @09:18AM (4 children)

      by G-forze (1276) on Thursday June 29 2017, @09:18AM (#532874)

      I think the original Fake News was some Romanian kids setting up a fake news site and filling it with outrageous (but fake) news stories, in order to get as many visitors (and thus ad impressions and clicks) as possible. It didn't have anything directly to do with influencing the public, just plain old profit.

      --
      If I run into the term "SJW", I stop reading.
      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday June 29 2017, @06:30PM (3 children)

        Fake news is not [wikipedia.org] new [politico.com]. Nor is the use of it for commercial purposes.

        Why is it that few seem to have even a fragile grasp of history [wikipedia.org] beyond five years ago?

        Sigh.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 2) by G-forze on Tuesday July 04 2017, @09:01PM (2 children)

          by G-forze (1276) on Tuesday July 04 2017, @09:01PM (#534931)

          Of course there has always been lies and propaganda fed to people around the world. But this time around, the term "fake news" (as opposed to agitprop or whatever) started to get used because of those romanian teens. Or do you seriously think Trump is referencing agitprop when shouting about "fake news"?

          --
          If I run into the term "SJW", I stop reading.
          • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday July 05 2017, @12:22AM (1 child)

            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday July 05 2017, @12:22AM (#534987) Homepage Journal

            Or do you seriously think Trump is referencing agitprop when shouting about "fake news"?

            Yes. As a matter of fact, I do. Demagogues have always loved to lambaste the press or anyone else they want to cow.

            Read a few history books, friend. Trump is using an old and quite unsavory playbook.

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
            • (Score: 2) by G-forze on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:57AM

              by G-forze (1276) on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:57AM (#535069)

              Ok, fair enough. I myself think you are giving the guy way too much credit. I don't think he could even pronounce the word.

              --
              If I run into the term "SJW", I stop reading.