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?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @10:20AM (21 children)
Anyone who has to declare themselves a "fact checker" is probably anything but, particularly if they're trying to shout down any opposition to their assertions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @10:33AM
Amen AC. Don't trust anyone with a name.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday April 25 2017, @10:33AM (3 children)
So you have to check the checkers that check checkers? ;-)
Reminds me of..
Monitor monitors [youtube.com] (video)
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @10:35AM
It's checkers all the way down. Now king me.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:27AM (1 child)
This exchange really reminds me of a piece at 538 [fivethirtyeight.com] a while back. The basic story: there's a guy out there who claims to study false but well-known debunking stories. His classic example is the idea that spinach contains a lot of iron and is thus a super food (hence Popeye, etc.). The standard debunking is that some nutrition report contained an error that was due to a misplaced decimal point. That debunking story has been told and retold all over the academic literature.
Except it turns out that the debunking story is itself false. For more details, you can read the link. So this guy researches this and finds out where the debunking story apparently came from and how it got things wrong. And he's obsessed with similar stories -- because apparently people who tell debunking stories are (surprise!) generally a bunch of self-righteous jerks who are eager to lord their debunking knowledge over the plebs... Which ironically makes them susceptible to fake or erroneous debunking stories.
The meta-irony of this is of course that this debunker of debunkers turns out to be a self-righteous jerk himself (surprise!) and for the past several years has been on an idiotic crusade to prove that Darwin plagiarized a lot of his theory of evolution and this fact is being written out of the history of science due to some vast conspiracy of science historians.
While Darwin himself acknowledged some similarities, the theory that Darwin plagiarized is pure nonsense and only makes sense to this guy because he doesn't understand statistics and the likelihood of a few words lining up a few times in hundreds of pages of a book. His research has been repeatedly rejected again and against by even barely reputable science journals... Yet he continues to try to wage a war on the internet about all of this.
So, we apparently need debunkers to debunk those who debunk the debunkers... And on and on it goes.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday April 26 2017, @12:55PM
Or one can just have some due diligence before accepting information? ;)
I recall when a local paper started with a debunking section. Well they got most right but seemed to lack serious capability to actually pay attention and not be under the influence of vested interests. So they got the *plonk* ;-)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by zocalo on Tuesday April 25 2017, @11:28AM (3 children)
I don't have any problem with a group calling themselves "Fact Checkers" if they take the latter approach and allow me to draw my own conclusions, but the *real* trick is not getting complacent and assuming that just because a story has a whole bunch of supporting links they just haven't found (or deliberately ignored) a link that completely blows the story out of the water. Given that kind of skepticism appears to be extremely short supply at present, it would be all too easy for a group with an agenda to create a front acting as a "Fact Checker", then slowly poison the well to push their views.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @12:03PM (2 children)
You just basically described the academic publishing process. Swamp them in hundreds of supporting info points/citations while leaving out the one or two crucial points that would lead to totally different conclusions. For example:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.02389 [arxiv.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by zocalo on Tuesday April 25 2017, @12:23PM (1 child)
The real trick is going to be find a way to do that, almost certainly involving members of the public as well as involved parties and other journalists, without it deteriorating into something akin to the edit-war flamefests that crop up on Wikipedia from time to time. That is going to mean a lot more curation and moderation of evolving stories than MSM currently engages in with discussion threads, but if the payback from that expense is increased trust in the MSM outlet leading to larger readership and ad revenues, then maybe that's perhaps worth the cost and effort. As an additional bonus, it might even help create some more skeptical members of the public who are better equipped to tell credible information from agendas and hearsay.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday April 25 2017, @07:08PM
Science and the news have a lot in common -- they present a vague possibly-factual statement based on a few statistics and spend the rest of the time presenting political opinions about it.
The recent "marches for science," for example, were just another anti-Trump circle-jerk -- albeit a more thinly-veiled one. Hopefully Trump sending people to Mars in 3 years will shut 'em the fuck up.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @01:03PM (10 children)
Anyone who has to declare themselves a "fact checker" is probably anything but, particularly if they're trying to shout down any opposition to their assertions.
Says the person trying to shout-down fact-checkers.
You don't seem clever enough to make a meta-joke.
More likely you are unwittingly demonstrating how one side of the political spectrum has embraced tribal epistemology.
Unhappy that facts don't support your ideology you declare that facts are biased so any that contradict your world view should be ignored.
Which, without any irony at all, is the basis of the fine article.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @05:20PM (9 children)
Bernie Sanders says something and it is "Mostly True". Later, when Donald Trump says it, it is "Mostly False".
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-25/politifact-apparently-even-facts-are-subjective-and-based-party-affiliation [zerohedge.com]
There is a damn good reason why Hillary Clinton was advertising "fact checkers" during the debates. Her friends even work for them!
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @05:55PM (5 children)
Differences between trump's and sanders's claims:
1) Sanders July 2015, Trump June 2016 - numbers change as time passes
2) Sanders specified ages 17-20, Trump said "youth"
3) Sanders provided a citation, Trump refused to provide a source leaving people to guess
#3 is a fundamental problem with trump - he has little interest in actually communicating the details. Instead of cooperating with the press in order to more clearly communicate his message, he either blows them off or actively tries to trip them up. He treats the press like an enemy rather than as representatives of their audiences. His whole, "I don't know, you tell me" schtick is the reason he gets less slack because reporters, like everybody else, do not have unlimited investigative resources and certainly don't have mind reading abilities.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @06:06PM
None of those differences is significant. There is no material difference. The bias is obvious.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by jmorris on Tuesday April 25 2017, @06:18PM (3 children)
You just proved the point. The 'fact checkers' begin with a presumption like yours, that Trump is Literally Hitler, a liar and too stupid to even know what a fact is. So the same basic claim is reversed from "mostly true" to "mostly false", mostly because Trump said it. Trump can say black youth unemployment is too damned high and be attacked for it. And you guys wonder why most Republicans long ago ceased to even try. This is not a new thing, it isn't rare and it isn't even limited to Trump. Every Republican back to Nixon is declared "Evil" or "Stupid" and usually both. People have caught on to this.
The first step in combating #FakeNews is admitting where the problem is. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NYT, Politico, HuffingPaint are all #FakeNews now. It isn't so much that they promote stories that are obvious fakes, it is in the selection of stories, the spin they put on them, etc. They are more clever than an Internet scammer and more politically motivated, but about as trustworthy. Because like the Internet scammer, they have zero interest in practicing journalism, both only pretend to do it in service to other goals. The scammer wants clicks, the media want to control the Narrative to get their team elected and kept in power. And for all the breathless reports in the #FakeNews about the scammers, the truth is that the legacy media get so many more eyeballs than the best scammers that it isn't even close determining who the worst problem is.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @06:57PM (2 children)
The 'fact checkers' begin with a presumption like yours, that Trump is Literally Hitler, a liar and too stupid to even know what a fact is.
Wow, that persecution complex is kicking in hard today!
Good reporters are skeptical of power, it doesn't matter who holds the power. Trump has exactly as much opportunity to inform them as anyone else being reported on. All legitimate reporters contact the people named in the stories for comment. Trump chooses not to comment. He can't complain when his side of the story isn't as well covered when he deliberately with-holds his side of the story. Well, he can complain, but anyone who isn't a fanboi can easily recognize the hypocrisy.
(Score: 2, Redundant) by jmorris on Tuesday April 25 2017, @08:21PM (1 child)
Wow, some people have very short memories.... or hope others do. We just experienced eight straight years where the media were unquestioning in their throne sniffing. Obama abused pretty much every power available to abuse and the media adored him for it. They even loved him when he treated THEM like crap, like an abused lover excuses their abuser. You might have forgotten the Affirmative Action Mistake already but I certainly haven't. And no, reporters do not contact the people named in their attacks anymore. Far too many examples abound for you to be allowed to get away with that crap either.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @09:25PM
That persecution complex does not let up, does it?
Get over it. Trump won. Whatever happened before Trump has nothing to do with how Trump is reported on.
> Affirmative Action Mistake
That's trump right? The guy who has literally lost billions of dollars, bankrupted at least 7 times, couldn't get into college without family connections, didn't graduate with any honors. Doesn't even have more than a 4-year degree. He's the poster-boy of affirmative action for silver-spooned white male mediocrity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @07:32PM (2 children)
If you look at the two poltifact articles you will see something on the upper right corner of each page:
(1) Different reporters
(2) Different editors
Even if you dismiss the fact that the claims being fact-checked themselves were different, the fact is that two entirely different sets of people were involved from top to bottom. You'd have a point if the same people were involved in both stories. They don't work in the same buildings, or even the same states. At worst you've got a case of right doesn't know what the left hand is doing.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday April 25 2017, @08:27PM (1 child)
If it were a rare and isolated example you would have a point. It is neither, it is the typical pattern. The best a claim made by a Republican seems to be able to achieve is "mostly true" and that requires an entirely uncontested claim that usually is simply not fact checked at all while a Democrat can lie through his teeth and and get "mostly true" until nobody is paying attention anymore and it might then get revised down a notch.
The organizations the Democrats and the media (BIRM) hold up as 'neutral fact checkers' are indistinguishable from Media Matters.... or the media itself. Of course there is a reason for that, most are either run by the media itself (WaPo / Bezos's Blog runs one) or journalism schools (which is where budding journalists are trained up to become political hacks).
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @09:35PM
> It is neither, it is the typical pattern.
If that is the typical pattern, surely you can dig up at least two more examples?
Right?
Beuller?
Meanwhile, here is a list of times when snopes found positively for the conservative world-view, just over a period of about 4 months:
Oops, looks like the list is too long for soylent to accept, so here's all that would fit, I had to cut out more than half:
FACT CHECK: Does Russia Have 'Kompromat' on Jason Chaffetz? [snopes.com]
Trump 'Bullies' Boy by Tossing Hat at Easter Egg Roll? [snopes.com]
FACT CHECK: Did Sen. Jeff Flake State Solar Energy Can't Power "Lights [at] Night"? [snopes.com]
Did President Trump Profit from the U.S. Missile Strike Against Syria? [snopes.com]
White House Admits Syria Missile Attack Was a Publicity Stunt to Make Trump Look Good? [snopes.com]
FACT CHECK: Is President Donald Trump Considering Resignation? [snopes.com]
Did Democrats Tweet an Altered Version of a Socialist Party Poster? [snopes.com]
Did Tom Price Say It Is 'Better for Our Budget If Cancer Patients Die More Quickly'? [snopes.com]
Did President Trump Announce Plans to End the 'Meals on Wheels' Program? [snopes.com]
FACT CHECK: Is Sean Spicer Wearing Mismatched Shoes? [snopes.com]
Did Jeff Guice Say 'Sick Children Should Die If Their Parents Can’t Afford Medical Supplies'? [snopes.com]
Sean Spicer Handed Mid-Briefing Note Saying, “You Just Committed a Felony”? [snopes.com]
Ben Carson and the 'Nut of the Mind' [snopes.com]
FACT CHECK: Is the GOP's Obamacare Replacement Called 'World's Greatest Healthcare Plan of 2017'? [snopes.com]
FACT CHECK: Did Betsy DeVos Say History Textbooks Should Be Based on the Bible? [snopes.com]
Did Paul Ryan Say Women Who Use Birth Control Are Committing Murder? [snopes.com]
Trump Wants to Deport American Indians to India? [snopes.com]
FACT CHECK: Lot Reserved for Future Internment Camp? [snopes.com]
Mike Pence Promises to Create the Department of Anti-Witchcraft? [snopes.com]
FACT CHECK: Did Ivana Trump Claim the President is 'Addicted' to Penis Enlargement Pills? [snopes.com]
FACT CHECK: Were President Trump's Sons Detained at Vancouver Airport over Ties with Fascist Dictator? [snopes.com]
FACT CHECK: Did Tucker Carlson Hire an Actor When He Couldn't Book Protest Organizers? [snopes.com]
FACT CHECK: Did Pat Robertson Say 'Staring' at Melania Trump 'Can Heal Gays'? [snopes.com]
FACT CHECK: Trump Billing Michelle Obama For $11 Billion? [snopes.com]
FACT CHECK: Did President Nixon Say Watergate Details Were 'Illegally' Leaked by Deep Throat? [snopes.com]
FACT CHECK: Has the Process to Impeach President Donald Trump Begun? [snopes.com]
Did President Donald Trump Ban 'Full Face' Veils? [snopes.com]
FACT CHECK: Betsy DeVos Said '40 Percent' Means 'More Than Half'? [snopes.com]
Did President Trump Refuse to Give Federal Aid to California Because of the State's Sanctuary Cities? [snopes.com]
Was Donald Trump Seen at a Swiss Resort with Vladimir Putin Before the Election? [snopes.com]
Did President Obama Deport More People Than Any Other President? [snopes.com]
George H.W. Bush Death Hoax [snopes.com]
Did Trump Call Trudeau 'Leader of the Igloo People?' [snopes.com]
Secret Service Adds 'Emotional Protection Division' for President Trump? - Snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did President Trump Ban 'Sharia Law' in the U.S.? - Snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did Betsy DeVos Demand That Classroom Globes Be Flattened? - Snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did President Trump Fire White House Butler Cecil Gaines? - Snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did President Trump Make English the U.S. Official Language? - Snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did the NAACP Give Jeff Sessions an 'Award of Excellence'? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did Vice President Mike Pence Lament That God Never Asked Him to Sacrifice His Children? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did President Trump Enact a 90-Day Ban on Childhood Vaccinations? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
National Prayer Breakfast Remarks: President Trump vs. President Obama : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did Steve Bannon Describe Himself as a 'Leninist' Who Wants to Destroy the State? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did White House Staff Disable Recording of a Call Between Presidents Trump and Putin? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did President Trump Sign an Executive Order Naming Himself the Popular Vote Winner? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did Neil Gorsuch Push for the 'Separation of the White and Black Races'? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
President Trump Eased Sanctions Against Russia's Intelligence Agency As a 'Present' to Putin? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did President Trump Remove White Supremacists from the Terror Watch Program? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
President Trump Renamed 'Black History Month' to 'African-American History Month'? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did Neil Gorsuch Found a High School 'Fascism Forever' Club? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Does a Photograph Depict a 5-Year-Old Syrian Girl Handcuffed at Dulles Airport? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did Police Raid and Burn a Standing Rock Protest Camp? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
President Trump Filed for Re-Election Early to Stop Political Speech of Nonprofits? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did President Donald Trump Sign an Executive Order on Climate Change? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Was Neil Gorsuch Unanimously Confirmed in 2006? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Was a Small Child Handcuffed at Dulles Airport Due to Entry Restrictions? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did President Trump Replace Washington Portrait with Vigo the Carpathian? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did the President Sign an Order Prohibiting Emergency Room Visits for Colds? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Can the Queen Legally Kill President Trump with a Sword? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Does Steve Bannon Need a Senate Confirmation Hearing to Sit on the NSC? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Melania Trump's Grandmother was a Soviet Soldier? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Does President Donald Trump Plan to Make it Illegal to be Transgender? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did President Trump Alter the United States Constitution? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Do Trump's Top Advisers Believe He is Misleading Them About Russian Blackmail? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did President Trump Criticize Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Social Media Use? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did Donald Trump's Campaign Unveil a Swastika-Like Logo? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did KellyAnne Conway Say Being Labeled Racist is 'a Small Price to Pay' for Making America Great Again? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Was Donald Trump’s Mother an Illegal Immigrant? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did President Trump Order the Building of 'Concentration Camps'? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Women's March Speaker Donna Hylton Served Time for Murdering a Man : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Is Trump Planning on Killing PBS and NPR? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Dallas Art Teacher Suspended for Shooting a Water Gun at Image of President Trump : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Trump Photoshopped His Hands to Look Bigger in White House Photograph? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Is Chili's Donating 15 Percent of Every Sale to Planned Parenthood? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did Trump Hang a Photograph of the Women's March at the White House? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Senior State Department Officials Resign as Trump Administration Takes Over : snopes.com [snopes.com]
D.C. Police Arrest Activist After James O'Keefe Video Sting : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Journalists Face Felony Charges After Arrests During Trump Inauguration Protests : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did President Trump Insult Navajos on Twitter? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did Kellyanne Conway's Inaugural Dress Copy a 1970s Simplicity Pattern? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did President Trump Reverse President Obama's Turkey Pardons? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Secret Service Agent Kerry O'Grady Investigated for Anti-Trump Remarks : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did Kellyanne Conway Get Into a Fistfight on Inauguration Day? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Trump Administration Reverses Course, Says EPA’s Climate Page Will Remain : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Winston Churchill on the Arts : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Was a Saturday Night Live Writer Suspended Over a Tweet About Barron Trump? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did U.S. President Donald Trump Declare Canadian Women the Biggest Threat After ISIS? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Lawmakers Criminalize Peaceful Protest? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Trump Administration Freezes EPA Grants, Limits Employee Access to the Press? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did Trump Tweet That Drug Testing Will Be Mandatory for Public Benefit Recipients? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did President Trump Shut Down the White House Phone-In Comment Line? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Protester Sets Trump Supporter's Hair on Fire : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did Mike Pence Say Trump Supporters Made Up 'More Than Half' of Womens' March? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did President Trump Bring a Cheering Crowd with Him to Visit the CIA? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Is 'Snowflake' a Nazi Term That Was Used During the Holocaust? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did Donald Trump Plagiarize His Inaugural Address from 'Bee Movie' and 'Avatar?' : snopes.com [snopes.com]
National Park Service Twitter Account Shut Down After Anti-Trump Retweets : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Was Mike Pence Disappointed in Men for Allowing the Women's March? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did Donald Trump Remove a MLK Bust from the Oval Office? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did Donald Trump Want Tanks and Missiles at His Inaugural Parade? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Photograph Shows Donald Trump at a KKK Cross Burning? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Highway Sign Urged Drivers to 'Consider Canada' Due to Inauguration Traffic? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did Donald Trump Remove the Terms 'LGBT' and 'Climate Change' from the White House Web Site? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did Russia Mint an 'In Trump We Trust' Coin? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did Hampton United Methodist Church Mock Trump on its Sign? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did Donald Trump Use a Receptionist's Desk and Notepad to Stage a Speechwriting Picture? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Was Vanilla Ice Cream Originally Black? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Is Paul Ryan Blocking All Calls and Faxes? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Is This Really Donald Trump's Inauguration Poem? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did Rep. John Lewis Skip Any Previous Inaugurations? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did a Russian Prostitute Say Donald Trump Was Poorly Endowed? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Chris Collins Says John Lewis Is 'Like a Spoiled Chimp That Got Too Many Bananas'? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Was the U.S. Government Found Guilty of Assassinating Martin Luther King, Jr? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did Donald Trump Advocate a 'No-Wash' Bathroom Trick in 'The Art of the Deal'? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Nicole Kidman Said Americans Should Support the President : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Obama Family Dog Reportedly Bites Visitor : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Did Donald Trump Revoke Press Credentials for Six News Outlets? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Does a Photograph Show a Palestinian Boy Getting Shot by Israeli Soldiers? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Sarah Palin Blames 'Mexican Muslim' Immigration for Fort Lauderdale Shooting? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
Trump Used Blank Sheets of Paper as Conflict-of-Interest Documents? : snopes.com [snopes.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @04:58PM
Still butthurt that people are challenging your world view? Get over yourself already!
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday April 25 2017, @10:49AM (3 children)
director of the European Federation of Journalists [..] we need to invest in journalism
Yes, we.. ie you and all others that aren't tax exempt needs to give away your salary so we (journalists) can stuff propaganda in your face and well.. make you pay for it.
Countries should be extremely prudent but they are not, and will not be. Seeking balance don't line any coffer quickly so it will all be biased towards what will fill them. Journalists should but won't do transparency nor a robust corrections policy because that is not how powers operate. There are journalists that are worthy of their title but they also are less likely to work at a large corporation. To keep a lot of customers around, the product has to fit all of them, thus it becomes grey mud. Not bad to anyone, not god for much.
If you have a harddisk going bad this is how it will be handled:
Fake news: "The disk sounds bad and we need to do something about it"
Hate speech: "The disk needs to be replaced by ordering a new one at Newdisk Inc"
(Score: 2) by driven on Tuesday April 25 2017, @02:54PM (1 child)
"I've been saying all along the hard disk is bad."
"Why is X focusing on bad hard disk when we could have faulty RAM?"
"If we didn't spend so much on X we could have good hard disks for everyone."
With so many variables to consider, I'm surprised that after centuries of governing someone hasn't come up with a spreadsheet to balance the variables appropriately. Then you just need to manage the weights assigned to each variable. Too many variables? Maybe machine learning can help.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kaszz on Wednesday April 26 2017, @01:16AM
Fake news: "The server isn't working and we should try to find the problem"
Whenever people speak up about actual problems. It becomes fake news because it hurts someones agenda or safe space.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @03:26PM
Fake news: "The disk sounds bad, so we need to do something about the sound card"
Hate speech: "Western Digital disks all suck and kill puppies. The disk needs to be replaced by a Seagate"
FTFY
(Score: 3, Interesting) by zocalo on Tuesday April 25 2017, @11:51AM (2 children)
It's also important to correct the archive, which is something many news outlets don't do well, or at all. If a news website reports a given sequence of events incorrectly on one URL, then updates the story to present a completely different point of view on a different URL later, then they also need to go back and update the original as well. Many examples of Fake News cite "sources" that have already been debunked, but because the fake story is still available online in its original form it's still possible to use it to add an appearance of credibility to a bogus story. Going further, a Wiki-style update history of evolving stories might be useful too; having a change log of how additional facts coming to light caused the story to evolve would serve both as a validation for the change in position and a demonstration of openness.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Tuesday April 25 2017, @03:42PM
And in related fact-based news [cnn.com], apparently Jimmy Wales is thinking along similar lines [wikitribune.com], combining Wikipedia-style fact correction of articles written by professional journalists. There's still an annointed team of volunteer "fact checkers" curating the editing rather than the Wikipedia style free-for-all, but it might be a step in the right direction.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @10:42PM
That strikes me as trying to fix the problem after the fact. While there is a place for that, I think there is a much more fundamental problem with "news" reporting right now. Currently, too much of what passes for news is an on-air reading of a press release from some government agency. What we need to see much more of is investigative journalism like in the days of Woodward and Bernstein. But that means getting out there and pounding the pavement and chasing down leads--many of which will go nowhere or turn out to be dubious--followed by rigorous follow up and then more follow up after that. All of that takes time; I can only imagine that it would end up being a career killer for many so-called "reporters". Only then will we have actual news reporting again. Let's face reality here: too many of today's so-called "news reporters" don't want to do that kind of investigative journalism. It's hard work. Occasionally it can be downright dangerous. And they might get their hair messed up in the process. And we haven't even touched on the fact that their editors and employers are going to be continually on their asses to get that big break in the story. But big breaks don't happen on a 24-hour cycle. That is the real problem with journalism today.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by looorg on Tuesday April 25 2017, @11:52AM (18 children)
He seems to have had it right with "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". At the same time it's hardly surprising that the trust in media has been in a sharp and rapid decline for a long time now. Turns out this whole "offering opinions" instead of, or as a replacement of, news was really REALLY bad for your reputation and the public trust in your organization(s). Something that is extremely hard to repair after the fact.
I'm less sure about the robust corrections policy -- as it is now if they even bother the correction get buried somewhere in the middle or end of the paper in a small note next to something nobody is reading. If they put the corrections on the front page where everybody see them perhaps they would be read, but that is just never going to happen. "Who made it within the newsroom", have fun being the journalistic scapegoat and fall-guy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @12:09PM (7 children)
It sounds like in your eyes most mainstream "news" is even lesser than "fake news". It is not even news, just blatant opinion presented as if it was news that doesn't fool anyone?
(Score: 5, Informative) by zocalo on Tuesday April 25 2017, @12:59PM (6 children)
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!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @02:54PM
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)
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)
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @05:29PM (2 children)
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)
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
> 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.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @01:11PM (9 children)
Turns out this whole "offering opinions" instead of, or as a replacement of, news was really REALLY bad for your reputation and the public trust in your organization(s).
And yet that's been the core of Fox's strategy and it has been fantastically successful at capturing a significant segment of the population. To the point where Fox news viewers are about 4x more likely to be single-source consumers of news than other groups. [journalism.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @02:35PM (4 children)
That might just as well be caused by many of those who also check other sources to quickly stop including Fox News in their sources because they come to the conclusion that it provides nothing of value.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @02:41PM (3 children)
Your theory does not account for the fact that Fox News is the most watched 24-hours news network in the country and has been for like a decade.
What they are doing works. In total contradiction to the theory that "offering opinions" erodes trust, it not only has it built immense trust in Fox, it also appeals to a large number of people.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @03:38PM (1 child)
They know how to work right-wing authoritarians.
I can't give Altemeyer credit since The Authoritarians came after Faux News had been going for a while, but somebody must have figured it out. Then they went, "How do we build a media empire pandering to right-wing authoritarian followers?"
Once you've established yourself as a right-wing authoritarian leader, it's a gravy train.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @12:50AM
Note, though, that Altemeyer wrote several books about the right-wing authoritarian personality trait years before the free online book you mention.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @03:59PM
Maybe the theory needs a slight rework. For those that are interested in getting actual news (defined here as actual facts about what is going on in the world), watching Fox will erode trust in Fox as so much of what Fox calls "news" is non-factual tabloid crap. For those that like tabloid crap, Fox news can happily become their sole source of whatever it is they spew. A lot of people like tabloid crap, Who Knew!. Sadly television "news", and particularly national televison, has become almost all tabloid because the people running the station like profits more than journalism. Actual journalism is expensive and contains news, facts about the world, that people are not going to like. Tabloid is cheap to make (after all, you just need to sit around and pull 'news' out of your orifice of choice), salacious and easily biased in whatever direction you feel like to appeal to your audience (hmm, more profit) or to lead them where you want them to go (hmm, more profits for the extremely wealthy, yum!).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @05:26PM (3 children)
If you use TV for news, and you don't want a liberal bias, Fox is your only choice. In terms of bias as measured against the views of an average American, a media study has shown:
Fox: mildly conservative
ABC and CBS: mildly to moderately liberal
NBC and CNN: absurdly liberal
If you happen to want something absurdly conservative, you're shit out of luck. You'll have to use the Internet or maybe talk radio.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @05:34PM (1 child)
Fox: mildly conservative
ABC and CBS: mildly to moderately liberal
NBC and CNN: absurdly liberal
If I had mods I'd mod you funny (although possibly your trolling). I almost lost a mouthful of coffee. I mean, calling Fox moderately liberal is somewhat amusing, but call NBC and CNN absurdly liberal is hilarious.
The 80's called and they want their Regan Rebulican's philosophy, *cough*, I mean NBC and CNN back!
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @06:03PM
Your idea of the "average American" gets severely mis-calibrated if you are surrounded by liberals. Actual conservatives are not happy that Fox was at best lukewarm about Trump, and yes they did elect him. Trump is your president.
A huge portion of the country consists of "people you would never spend time with". They mostly don't live in cities and don't do tech work. They mostly don't want to spend time with people like you, and people like you REALLY don't want to spend time with them. (liberals are more likely to cut a personal relationship due to politics -- so much for tolerance, eh?)
Alternately, you haven't seen CNN lately. About 5 to 10 years ago, CNN was moderately liberal.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @05:35PM
> In terms of bias as measured against the views of an average American, a media study has shown:
You mean that "media study" produced by fox news?
The fact is, your very framing of the issue reveals the problem with fox news.
Its a standard trope that the media is untruthful because it is "liberal."
But instead of seeking to be more truthful than their competition they are unabashedly untruthful in service of their own bias.
Accusations of a liberal bias are just an excuse for being even more biased themselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @01:09PM (2 children)
Here's the thing - we've had "fake news" for a long time now. Ever go to the supermarket and take a look at the tabloids? Look at your newspaper stand and see the "Free Take One" ? Your college newspaper?
The "problem" is that people *want* to read fake news. "Trump Tells All About Secret Affairs!" is *interesting*, if not *true*. When you go over to someones house and they tell you that it is true, you laugh because it is a joke.
However, on the internet, fakeNews/tabloids look shockingly similar to real news. It is linked to by reputable news sources, search engines, Facebook feeds, etc. It is going to continue to look like real news, as tabloids look like real news. The fix is a social fix - tabloids are only carried by low-quality newspaper stands, supermarkets, etc. People that report it as real are laughed off stage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @09:34PM
Check out Mark Twain's "Running for Governor." Hilarious, and full of examples of fake news used for political purposes. Did he really steal a poor woman's Plantain Patch in Peking?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @01:54AM
That sort of 'fake news' was easy to spot. It was obvious. Tabloids would only appeal to the people who do not care they are mislead or can really not tell. A small enough group to not really mater.
There is a different style that most people are starting to see. I personally saw it about 20 years ago. I came across it by accident.
So I went in search of 'unbiased news'. This thing does *not* exist. Once you recognize the half truths and obvious corporate ads you can not un-see it. I had to tune completely out of it. It just filled me with anger that they kept trying to trick me. Swing by someones house and it would invariably end up on CNN or FoxNews. Both suck ass. I would beg whoever switched it to 'the news' to turn it off and interact with me instead of tuning me out to get their fix of the news. Lost a good friend over it years ago. Maybe he wanted it that way. Would go over there and he would turn on the news. I made it clear 'invite me over and then turn that shit on, I leave'.
As I researched it I realized it had been going on a *long* time. Hell today someone showed me a headline which had a triple negative. I had to get out a decoder ring to figure out what exactly it was saying. Yet our current 'MSM' is full of this sort of thing. Has been for years.
People that report it as real are laughed off stage
Frankly they should be for the bullishit they try to shovel on us.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @01:24PM (3 children)
Combating "hate speech?" Get the fuck out of here you left control freak. We are seeing Freedom of Speech under attack like we have never seen before.
(Score: 2) by Taibhsear on Tuesday April 25 2017, @03:53PM (2 children)
"Combating" hate-speech and "censoring/silencing" hate-speech are two entirely different things. The former is pointing out how much of an idiot you are with facts, reason, and empathy. The latter is sticking your fingers in your ears or covering someone's mouth and hoping the problem goes away. The former is the right thing to do. The latter is unconstitutional (for the government to do).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @04:00PM (1 child)
I'd love to side with you, but my cynicism is tingling. I'm 100% sure they will not make that distinction, they will only tell you they are making that distinction. Under the hood it's the same BS. Because even if they start out trying to just counter it with their own arguments, as soon as that doesn't work they will revert to more authoritarian measures. In a marketplace of ideas, most of their "ideas" do not pass the BS smell test.
Also, anything that is unconstitutional does not mean it will not be tried. Things that are unconstitutional are used everyday by the government. Only things that are challenged get stopped in the courts, and even then a slew of things that should be stopped does not even get touched (FISA court for example). And I am rapidly losing faith in institutions that are supposed to stop government overreach because they appear to be taking a very strange side on a lot of issues.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @07:35PM
> I'd love to side with you, but my cynicism is tingling. I'm 100% sure they will not make that distinction, they will only tell you they are making that distinction.
Well, if what they say doesn't count, why do you even believe they care at all? Why don't you assume they are secretly promoting hate speech?
Or do conspiracies only work one way?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday April 25 2017, @01:41PM (5 children)
The first thing everyone should bear in mind when reading anything that claims to be non-fiction is "This could be a bunch of malarkey." That's why you look for independent corroboration, ways of verifying facts, logical fallacies, and so forth. Training people in these techniques used to be a standard part of education, and the same techniques that work for news articles also work for academic literature and other kinds of non-fiction writing.
That said, there are 4 kinds of dishonesty that commonly find their way into the news:
1. Dishonest sources: The source says something, and rather than going through the "could this be malarkey?" process (which is slow) the reporter dutifully writes it down and types up the story to get it out as quickly as possible. Sometimes reporters intentionally don't look too carefully, because not questioning a source makes it more likely that source will talk to that reporter again, and having a collection of sources that will talk to you is very valuable for a reporters' career. They can also fall victim to prank callers [slate.com] and even prank organizations [youtube.com].
2. Dishonest reporters: The sources are honest, but the reporter is intentionally misrepresenting what they said to match the reporters' own biases. Or, in some cases, the reporter makes up sources that agree with them, put words in the mouths of other people, and otherwise create an impression that was never true. This can happen without the knowledge or approval of the editors. For example, Judith Miller's completely false reporting related to Iraq's WMDs.
3. Dishonest editors: The reporter did their job well and wrote a good story solidly based on evidence. The editor then changed the story to be dishonest to match the editors' own biases. Here's an example from the New York Times [salon.com].
4. Dishonest organizations: In this case, not only are none of the reporters honest, the editors / managers know it and expect it. Reporters who attempt to actually write honest reports get stifled and/or fired. That sort of thing is standard practice for Cosmopolitan, for example.
There are also of course honest mistakes, too. It's entirely possible that Pons & Fleischmann actually thought they had working cold fusion, for example.
The recent complaints about "Fake News" were originally so-called "mainstream" organizations calling out dishonest organizations (their motivations were suspect, since it's not like they were entirely honest either). But since the term was coined, it provided a convenient cop-out to anyone wanting to discount any information not matching their preconceptions, what it now usually means is "I'm resolving my cognitive dissonance by discarding this source of information without any kind of serious consideration."
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @05:03PM
3. Dishonest editors: The reporter did their job well and wrote a good story solidly based on evidence. The editor then changed the story to be dishonest to match the editors' own biases. Here's an example from the New York Times [salon.com].
Surely you realize your example is weak tea, right?
Reading your own link makes it clear that all of the changes were to pure opinions - replacing one set of opinions with another. That's not about "evidence" at all.
How about an example that matches your rhetoric? Actual dishonesty about facts rather than disagreements of opinion?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @05:14PM (3 children)
You misspelled Fox News. No need to thank me and you're welcome.
(Score: 4, Informative) by bradley13 on Tuesday April 25 2017, @06:56PM (2 children)
Fox News? Fun to pick on them, sure, because they do this. biasing stories toward the right. Most other news organizations do exactly the same thing, only in the opposite direction.
Here's an example that most people will know: Remember Trayvon Martin [biography.com]. Follow that link, look at the picture. That's the picture that was all over the news at the time. Of course, that's a picture from when he was 12, not 17. Why? Because a 17-year-old black guy wearing a hoodie [spin.com] isn't cute, in fact, looks a lot more threatening. Virtually the entire MSM was united in their effort to drum up sympathy for Trayvon, and using a picture of him as a cute kid was part of that. Truth was not of interest, it was all about drumming up racial outrage.
So, yeah, Fox News integrates bias into their reporting. So does ABC, CBS, CNN, Reuters, the NY times, the Washington Post, and the entire rest of the media establishment. I don't trust any of them to present facts neutrally.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @07:18PM (1 child)
You are complaining about the one time a black victim doesn't get the least flattering photo used in all the reporting about him.
Just how fragile in your whiteness are you? [twitter.com]
> Virtually the entire MSM was united in their effort to drum up sympathy for Trayvon, and using a picture of him as a cute kid was part of that.
Versus the alternate media which used alternate photos of entirely different people. [christandpopculture.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @01:59AM
He picked a racial one. But the whole media is full of that shit. I have come to the conclusion you can not figure out what they are saying unless you know their pre-bias they are going to spin it with. Hell one station had a 'no spin zone'. I think they could have powered the entire state of california from the spin out of that show.
Make no mistake. None of the news orgs are in it to tell you the truth. They are telling you 'their narrative' (their words, not mine). Last year was Christmas for the news orgs. Now they need to make sure you are properly outraged so you do not tune out. Notice how fox kicked out its highest rated dude? Over what? The advertisers said 'he needs to go'. You are not paying the bills the advertisers are. The stations are making sure you are properly outraged to sell you shit in commercials every 15 mins. The easy one is a cheesy joke from the 80s 'found out after commercial break'. Berma shave.
(Score: 1) by fyngyrz on Tuesday April 25 2017, @02:09PM
Inasmuch as the news is, for the most part, a for-profit business, one has to realize that they are in the business of fetching eyes.
Everything else is in pursuit of this; if they fail at it, they will go away, so it's always very high up on the list of priorities, and I would suggest it's actually first the vast majority of the time.
The publisher usually exercises influence. The advertisers exercise influence, not the least of which is flocking to the places that get the most eyes. The editors exercise influence both in story selection, slant, and wording. Reporters exercise influence in everything from the questions they ask (and the ones they don't), the words they use, and the slant they (usually) employ.
By the time we see the news, it's been heavily filtered, and that's without even getting to the issues of "is this actually true?" and "is this opinion disguised as news?" Usually the answer to the latter is at least somewhat yes, as news is almost always couched within an overweening social narrative. The "drug war" and "human trafficking" are two prominent examples of this, as are subjects characterized as "the national defense" (ask yourself if you've seen any defense of our nation going on lately? Tip: foreign adventurism is not "national defense.") and the entire parlor trick of giving equal time to superstitious nonsense, for instance evolution vs. creationism.
Some outlets – fox "news" for one – are pretty blatant about handing out a narrative that is heavily divorced from reality; some less; but it is a very rare news outlet indeed that isn't filtering everything they present to you through various monetarily- and perspective-driven lenses.
Then there's political bias. And superstitious bias. And gender bias. And social bias. And nationalist / jingoist bias.
In the end, it turns out to be a fair amount of work to actually figure out what's going on, what it might actually mean to one's self and family in both the short and long term, and how much time one might want to invest in discussing it, and with whom.
Or, you know, there's "reality" TV. Squirrel!
(Score: 1) by Weasley on Tuesday April 25 2017, @04:22PM (3 children)
The ruling class seems to have taken a lessen from the Bible here. The people can't discuss your decisions if they can't even agree on the language to use while discussing them. So our moron-in-chief has us, somehow...bafflingly, debating about what is real and what isn't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @04:56PM (1 child)
"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
— Bill Clinton lying about a question of paramount national importance
“The leaks are absolutely real. The news is fake.”
— Donald Trump brushing off trivial news reports that should concern nobody
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:01AM
He should know they are fake. He probably made them up to find out who he could trust.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday April 26 2017, @09:35AM
The ruling class seems to have taken a lessen from the Bible here.
But the rest of us seem to have gotten a moron instead. More or lessen.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @08:42PM
Ban social media, regulate what the news can and can't print. Because people are fucking stupid and, when you get right down to it, they only respond to a heavy spanking from their parents, er the government.