How NOT To Spot Fake News


Here’s an idea. Just because news is bad, that
doesn’t mean that it’s fake. There’s been all kinds of
talk recently about fake news, by which people normally
mean incorrect or invented information, unsourced
claims, or patently outlandish assertions, often aimed at
stirring the political doo-doo. Fake news is even thought to
have played a meaningful part in the outcome of the 2016
presidential election. Fake news has become such
a topic of discussion that many sources
have put together resources for spotting it. “The Guardian” did
a piece in December. “Cyborgology” talked about
fake news and the aesthetics of objectivity in January. “On the Media” drafted
a breaking news consumer handbook, fake news edition. And I recommend them all. Sources in the doobly-doo. They’ve certainly helped me in
the new news media landscape. We are going to do
something different. We’re not going to talk
about how to spot fake news. We’re going to talk
about how not to spot fake news– about how certain
news items can seem suspect, but not all blemishes make
their stories necessarily fake. Fake news– fully fabricated and
false news– isn’t the only way that news can be
bad or troublesome. And because a story
is bad or troublesome, that doesn’t make it fake. By unquestioningly
dismissing it as such, you may be doing yourself
a disservice as a concerned citizen hoping to stay informed. And we’re going
to talk about what isn’t fake news by using
Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman’s book “Manufacturing
Consent” as our guide. If you’re unfamiliar,
these gents argue that news media can
function in subtle, even unmeaning, ways to get
people to agree with the news source and one another
on the issues of the day and on political and
economic positions which largely
benefit the powerful. They call this ability the news
media’s propaganda function. And they claim that it’s
built into the very structure of media itself,
even media which you’d never point at and go,
hey, that’s a propaganda. Hold your news horses, though. There’s an important distinction
here between propaganda function and propaganda. Lots of fake news is, in
fact, literal propaganda– misleading information used to
promote a political viewpoint. Real, true, true news
that reports on facts may function in a
way like propaganda but still itself
not be propaganda as such, in that it does have
a basis in observable fact. And that is where lots
of confusion arises and where we get people
calling verifiable stories reported by major news
outlets, fake news when, in fact, it’s legit
news those people simply disagree with or which has
maybe lost its way a little. So we’re going to spend this
episode talking about what Chomsky and Hermann call the
five filters that news must pass through to be made
and how those effects the creation of even real news. We’re going to use these
filters to help us identify the propaganda function
of news while considering how they don’t necessarily
make that news fake. The first filter has to do with
the size of media organizations and why they make media
in the first place. News companies are huge
with massive budgets. And often, they’re subsidiaries
of even larger conglomerates. And those conglomerates
want to make bank. This means two things. First, news orgs probably won’t
publish stories that talk bad about their own conglomerates. And as media gets
increasingly consolidated, the number of off-limit
subjects would likely grow, including even
capitalism itself. You know what they say– don’t bite the hand that
writes the fatty paychecks. Second, the
consolidation also means the little guy can’t
break into the industry and provide meaningful
competition. The internet does
provide a voice to individuals and
small organizations. But for the most part, this
is different in size, reach, and authority than the
established news media. Normally, massive
corporations are the ones who guide the
national conversation. Fake news has, in fact,
challenged the second half of this first filter by taking
advantage of algorithmic news aggregation. We did an episode about that. Fake news swayed public
opinion to the degree that we now have to make
this episode about that. But on the first
point, because news is produced by a corporation
doesn’t automatically make it fake or false. Corporate relationships
often mean a news organization is quiet
on certain topics or cagey on others. But for better and
worse, it is often the resources available only
to large corporate news that results in the realest
form of journalism– access to politicians, expert
sources, time and money to research, dig, and verify. Ideally, all newsmakers
are very clearly disclosing financial
relationships and potential
conflicts of interest. This is not always the case. But in the way the
use of a fallacy doesn’t necessarily
make an argument wrong, corporate structures
don’t necessarily mean a story is false
or an outlet is fake. Most commercial news sources
must sell advertising space around their work
to stay in business. This means that
advertiser happiness is essential to the
survival of a media company. And getting involved
in political or social controversies, taking any
kind of editorial risk, could threaten the good
cheer and therefore generosity of one’s advertisers. And the stakes are high. Chomsky and Herman note
that a 1% TV audience drop equals a loss of $80
to $100 million in 1988. Ideally, ad sales and
editorial are totally isolated. But that’s easier
said than done. So publishers find a happy
editorial medium where news is useful, keeps
audiences coming back, and advertisers grinning. If the reporting is
stale, sad, or sensitive, even if it’s important,
there’s a chance that the budget suffers. Interestingly, fake
news tends to be more ad-supported than
your standard legit news publisher who also benefits
from grants, subsidies, or subscriptions. “On the Media” points out that
most fake news websites are slathered in ads since
other revenue opportunities are out of reach. So it may be a
question of degree. But simply because
there are ads present doesn’t mean a story
has been bought and paid for by commercial
interests, though it can have an impact on the
kinds of stories that are run. And additionally, it’s a sign
of the unfortunate requirements of reporting what is literally
the case under capitalism. No matter how large
the media company, you can’t be
everywhere all the time or have expertise on
everything going down. So newsmakers need sources– civilians, governments,
organizations, and experts, all of whom
have their own perspectives and agendas. And what’s worse, publicly
challenging those sources, and even refusing them, can
jeopardize future access. So it’s often in the interest
of even legit newsmakers to report what they’re
told and how they’re told without asking too many
questions or causing trouble so they’ll continue being told
anything at all in the future. This is unfortunate
and complicated. Ideally, for instance,
a major news publisher would be able to call out
a source on a falsehood without fear of jeopardizing
access or their own existence. But the ineffective handling
of squirrelly sources by legit news is different
from fake news, which often has no sources, a
single, unverified source, uses itself or the feelings
and assumptions of the author as a source without marking
the piece’s opinion, or uses outdated, disproven, or
suspicious sources, including other fake news outlets. It’s a good rule
of thumb to always cross-reference the
sources of news story, no matter where it’s from. With fake news, often
there’s nothing or very little to even cross-reference. Filter 4 is called flak. Flak is the negative
response newsmakers endure for covering a particular
issue– letters of complaint, petitions, lawsuits,
and of course, Tweets, Facebook posts,
YouTube comments, and 45-minute-long
response videos. Chomsky and Herman
point out that lobbies used to produce the worst flak. Today, flak is
largely the result of individuals
brigading on the wings of their righteous outrage. Organizations, people,
and communities form what Chomky and
Herman call flak machines, generating so much
negative PR around a story that they bury the
reporting under mountains of distracting vitriol. This often happens, they
say, when newsmakers question the status quo. Flak is one way for
those with enough power to convene a flak machine
to maintain their power. One of the central
responsibilities of journalism is reporting
unfavorably on those in positions of authority. And that has consequences
which sometimes even legit news outlets will be fearful of. But if people are upset about
a story, that doesn’t mean it’s false. And as a matter of fact, it
can mean exactly the opposite. An inconvenient truth may
convene a flak machine more quickly and violently
than a falsehood. Still, you should always be
deeply suspicious of stories that thrive on anger or align
exactly with your frustrations and fears about the world. Be mindful of the
difference between being mad at a piece of
reporting and being mad with a piece of reporting. Fake news is often part of
the flak machine itself. Our fifth and final filter
is called anti-communism. “Manufacturing Consent”
was written in 1988 during the end of the Cold War,
so communism was the threat keeping everyone up at night. In the updated edition,
Chomsky and Herman refer simply to
“fear of the other.” Media has the power to label
any group as outsiders, thus making the public
afraid of that group. And as Chomsky wrote,
when the public is afraid, they accept
authority, to keep up with the news, which
is telling them everything they need to
know about how totally boned they are– sort of like media
Stockholm Syndrome. Unfortunately, both
legit and fake news rely on fear to keep people
glued to their screens and therefore
generating revenue. While you’d hope the difference
would be a matter of degree, even legit journalists
can get carried away stoking the flames
of fear and aren’t reeled in by their
producers or editors. Like with flak, you should
be skeptical of any story or publisher which
consistently makes you feel more afraid than informed. It may not be fake– both real and fake news
reflects the tensions and biases of their moment– but in my opinion, neither is
it worth your time or money. The ideal goals
of journalism are to challenge, inform,
and hold accountable, not to pander,
enrage, or exacerbate. Staying vigilant in
spotting fake news is important– more
important than it’s been in the recent
past, especially when it comes to political news. However, vigilance
over fake news shouldn’t replace vigilance
over the real news or encourage us to
conflate the two. Factual reporting
can and usually is filtered through corporations,
advertisers, sources, audiences, and even fear itself. So we should be doubly prepared,
ready to refuse the fake and hold accountable the true. There will be no comment
response video for this video. But if you want to let
us know how you do and do not spot fake news in the
comments below, we’ll be there. In this week’s comment
response video, we talk about your thoughts
regarding the hoodie. If you want to
watch that one, you can find a link
in the description or wait for the end
card to show up. Idea Channel has a Patreon. Thank you so much to all
of our current patrons for their support. If you want to help the
show, you can head over to patreon.com/pbsideachnnel. We also have a Facebook,
and irc, and a sub-Reddit. The Tweet of the week
comes from [INAUDIBLE] who points us towards a parody
Zizek [INAUDIBLE] review of that new Taco Bell food item
that is the fried chicken taco. It gets real good,
real quick, especially if you like laughing at
Zizek, which you know, we do. And last but
certainly not least, this week’s episode would not
have been possible or good without the very hard work of
this well-oiled flak machine. Oh, one more thing before we go. I’m here with Anna from
“Gross Science,” which is a PBS Digital
Studio show that’s about the squishy, gross,
grotesque side of science. And I was wondering if you
could just tell us really quick, what makes something gross? So that’s a really
good question. And I think that
things that are gross are things that
remind us that we’re no different than animals. And I think that’s unsettling,
because it reminds us that we are mortal and can die. So you see the
parts of your body that remind you that
you’re just a meat thing. Yeah, that you are a
bag of flesh and liquids and some bones. And it’s all very fragile. So if you would like
constant reminders that you are a bag of
liquid and flesh and bones, you definitely have to
check out “Gross Science.” Thanks, Mike.

Author Since: Mar 11, 2019

  1. To think that Media can't be used to set a Narrative and Propaganda by editing, and filtering what events you see is just Naive.

  2. Throughout your whole piece I get the sense your trying to defend the Liberal MSM, despite the wikileaks, project veritas, and numerous clips showing the misrepresentation or creation of news events to fit the liberal propaganda Narrative. Heres another suggestion Read Alinsky's Rule for Radicals.

  3. The first sentence of the video is a wrong perspective.
    Fake News is not necessarily bad news. Its non factual news.

  4. Wait, I thought this channel was supposed to make outlandish claims, not rational ones.
    Of course there's some value in biased news, as long as you are critical and objective. Biased and fake are two completely different things.

  5. I think a good TL;DR of this video would be "be careful about the fallacy fallacy" only because a news item may be somehow biased it doesn't mean that the conclusions are wrong , simply that the reasoning of the author comes from a biased prospective.

    The only inoculation against "fake news" is a good sense of skepticism and most importantly time , which is why it's usually the people in the lowest socioeconomic status that are victims of "fake news".

    Being poor usually equates to substandard education and having to work many more hours than average which diminishes the ammount of free time a person can devolve to acculturate itself and build the mental structures to analyze news articles from an objective standpoint and not an emotional one.

    Obviously this section of the population isn't the only possible victim , a lot of people live in their own bubble , confirmation bias is the second biggest offender.

  6. Dude, I don't really like this guy or this channel, but the music in this vid is SWEET.

    What's the music from 4:30 to 5:18?

    However

    *>*Young Turks
    *>*not pure FAKE NEWS

  7. I don't need some PBS douche to teach me how to spot fake news, I am already good at spotting things that are fake like your hair plugs and obvious comb-over.

  8. Howdo I spot fake news?
    I dont watch real news, I watch fake news instead like Real Time with Bill Maher,
    The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,
    LastWeekTonight with John Oliver,
    Full Frontal with Samanta Bee,
    The Daily Show with Trevor Noah ( Im starting to not like this show).

  9. Your idealism is admirable in these times. I showed my dad a video from PBS idea channel and his comment was that it was bias… I pray we are approaching a time when being agreeable is unusual, controversial, and interesting…

  10. Two big tips for following fake news:
    1) Follow the money. Whomever is funding the news source can tell you a bit about the filters through which the news is given and can give you insight as to its reliability. related to filter 2
    2) Look for citation circles. A citation circle is a group of three or more websites that cite each other as the originator of a "news" story with none of them actually taking credit for it. Unfortunately, other news sites and blogs pick up and spread these stories and then more reliable news sites do, and so on on and so forth until it winds up on a generally credible news source or cable news.
    related to filter 3

  11. Question: Is "The Greater Israel Project" Fake "news"? I don't know. I have looked into it a little but… I have a hard time trusting sources. I take everything with a grain of salt.
    Yes, I know, even though I might be told something here, I will still take it too with a grain of salt. I just want to have at least some 'grasp', if you will, as to what might be real or is just propaganda.
    Thanks.

  12. You speak too fast! SLOW DOWN! I could not make out everything you were trying to say; Or if you are trying to make a certian number of points in a limited time, edit..edit…edit.

  13. fghjkscdvfbgndcgvfbjhnxfdkjxdfgcvhnj
    poiuygjlghfvhcghcghvckhgvhlvblfdbvdsohbvsvbfvhxclbvhbfljfv

  14. That's simply not correct. You must be paid shill or people that are part of the fake news issue. Fake news became big BEFORE the election and has been identified as a social issue since it convinced so many people of false information. It's not a partisan issue. It's become even more of a social issue since so many people are so strongly attached to their emotions about 'their side winning' that they believe whatever catchy headline or blurb appeals to their beliefs while at same That's simply not correct. You must be paid shill or people that are part of the fake news issue. Fake news became big BEFORE the election and has been identified as a social issue since it convinced so many people of false information. It's not a partisan issue. It's become even more of a social issue since so many people are so strongly attached to their emotions about 'their side winning' that they believe whatever catchy headline or blurb appeals to their beliefs while at same That's simply not correct. You must be paid shill or people that are part of the fake news issue. Fake news became big BEFORE the election and has been identified as a social issue since it convinced so many people of false information. It's not a partisan issue. It's become even more of a social issue since so many people are so strongly attached to their emotions about 'their side winning' that they believe whatever catchy headline or blurb appeals to their beliefs while at same That's simply not correct. You must be paid shill or people that are part of the fake news issue. Fake news became big BEFORE the election and has been identified as a social issue since it convinced so many people of false information. It's not a partisan issue. It's become even more of a social issue since so many people are so strongly attached to their emotions about 'their side winning' that they believe whatever catchy headline or blurb appeals to their beliefs while at same That's simply not correct. You must be paid shill or people that are part of the fake news issue. Fake news became big BEFORE the election and has been identified as a social issue since it convinced so many people of false information. It's not a partisan issue. It's become even more of a social issue since so many people are so strongly attached to their emotions about 'their side winning' that they believe whatever catchy headline or blurb appeals to their beliefs while at same That's simply not correct. You must be paid shill or people that are part of the fake news issue. Fake news became big BEFORE the election and has been identified as a social issue since it convinced so many people of false information. It's not a partisan issue. It's become even more of a social issue since so many people are so strongly attached to their emotions about 'their side winning' that they believe whatever catchy headline or blurb appeals to their beliefs while at same That's simply not correct. You must be paid shill or people that are part of the fake news issue. Fake news became big BEFORE the election and has been identified as a social issue since it convinced so many people of false information. It's not a partisan issue. It's become even more of a social issue since so many people are so strongly attached to their emotions about 'their side winning' that they believe whatever catchy headline or blurb appeals to their beliefs while at same.

  15. That's simply not correct. You must be paid shill or people that are part of the fake news issue. Fake news became big BEFORE the election and has been identified as a social issue since it convinced so many people of false information. It's not a partisan issue. It's become even more of a social issue since so many people are so strongly attached to their emotions about 'their side winning' that they believe whatever catchy headline or blurb appeals to their beliefs while at same

  16. That's simply not correct. You must be paid shill or people that are part of the fake news issue. Fake news became big BEFORE the election and has been identified as a social issue since it convinced so many people of false information. It's not a partisan issue. It's become even more of a social issue since so many people are so strongly attached to their emotions about 'their side winning' that they believe whatever catchy headline or blurb appeals to their beliefs while at same

  17. That's simply not correct. You must be paid shill or people that are part of the fake news issue. Fake news became big BEFORE the election and has been identified as a social issue since it convinced so many people of false information. It's not a partisan issue. It's become even more of a social issue since so many people are so strongly attached to their emotions about 'their side winning' that they believe whatever catchy headline or blurb appeals to their beliefs while at same

  18. I think there is an aesthetic component that wasn't covered here. Which is simply, that fake news, thanks to technological advances, looks like real news.
    People like Alex Jones, who has a studio for his YouTube channel with a blue colour template, a globe in the back ground and perhaps most importantly a desk. All of these are in a sense cultural signifiers of trustworthyness, authority. I suspect the easier access to these aesthetic cultural signifiers have strengthened so called "fake news" greatly.

  19. Despite all these, can anyone really stop people from feeding their confirmation bias? All I see in the comments are growing political divide and people coming to outlandish conclusions by using one or two examples that only reaffirms their narratives; And by the end of the day, nothing has changed.
    The fact that people in power not only can't be held accountable for lying but also have developed immunity to consequences make these even scarier.

  20. The only truly valuable information that one can share comes in four basic forms:

    • What resources I want to get

    • What resources I want to give/get rid of

    • What goal I want to be able to accomplish in the future

    • How I was able to accomplish some goal in the past

    Beyond that, everything is best seen as a highly biased opinion, even seeming objective "facts".

  21. Interesting but i am of the opinion that propagandizing rather that informing is bad regardless of methodology.
    Fake news is nothing new and goes clear back the the bad old days of yellow journalism , the MSM is just trying and failing to regain relevance after utterly discrediting its self and alienating 50% of what market share it retained prior to the election.
    i have some news , no one will be coming back no mater what they do. they jumped the shark missed the landing and got eaten alive.
    The public was forced to go to the alt press for actual independent reporting and the MSM lost control of the narrative and could not even preform its "propaganda function" and the PTB noticed. corporate media is now a dead industry that survives as a zombie subsisting on PAC funding. even advertisers have gotten involved and no longer make selling the product the focus of their work.
    the actors that have made this election a "cause" have damaged the Hollywood brand so badly that hardly any one watched the Oscars because we are all sick and tired of the preening and preaching coming from a bunch of hypocritical morons whose opinions no one asked for or cares about.

    TLDR the age of the PR industry "manufacturing consent" is is finished the internet killed it.

  22. Oh good, Noam Chomsky, openly on the hard left, as a primary source. I'm sure this will be objective as always

  23. "Fake news, fully fabricated and false news isnt the only way news can be bad or troublesome. And because a story is bad or troublesome,that doesn't make it fake. By unquestionably dismissing it as such,you may be doing yourself a disservice as a concerned citizen hoping to stay informed."
    Damn, that was deep. Kudos 🙂

  24. It's good to know that someone other than Reason mag is pointing out how the "fake news" label is being misused and abused. Although I'm not sure I'd rely too heavily on someone like Chomsky for guidance. I think the first and most important step to dealing with news, fake or otherwise, is to be skeptical without sufficient supporting documentation and sources, and of course, Don't Panic! If a story is trying to generate fear and hysteria, it's wise to be even more skeptical of the story than you normally would.

  25. I have a feeling that "fake news" is trying to be defined as "that item is not worth paying attention to" rather than true or false.

  26. Here's an idea, just because news contains verifiable fact doesn't prevent the ideas presented within it from being false, and thus FAKE NEWS.

    I'll be unsubbing now.

  27. And Donald Trump tweets another unsubstantiated story about President Obama supposedly illegally wiretapping his office in Trump Tower during the election. Still relevant.

  28. Matpat on The Film Theorists covered this around Christmas. His argument: Advertising-Platforms don't care about their own content, only the number of eyeballs on their advertisements.

  29. I feel that in addition to the video, the public get confuse with informative and interpetative journalism and opinionative journalism. If a piece is under the opinion sectión, like the editorial column, letters to the director, other columns writer (not part of the direction) then its most likely just an opinion. In other hand if it has opinion in then its good to be suspicion. Also, interpretative journalism is based on hard info but gives a view point (like documentaries).

  30. As of writing this, I haven't seen the video yet, because I wanted to check the articles first. I mainly skimmed the articles, but there are some things I noticed

    For instance: The article of The Guardian builds up to the conclusion 'share responsibly, don't read things that make you angry'. Why? Things happen in this world that make you angry (or at least should make you angry) and ignoring those events is probably the stupidest thing you can do. I'm pretty sure The Guardian also runs those stories, so 'don't read things that make you angry' occasionally means 'don't read The Guardian'? The "take only photographs, leave only footprints" approach they suggest rings in my ears as listen and believe "good" journalists, but don't question them, do not respond, do not share and discuss it, do not let YOUR thoughts alter the story THEY told you. I don't listen and believe anyone, whether that person is Joe the Plumber on his Facebook or The Guardian. If I think something is fishy, I discuss it, like I'm doing right now. Their solution to fake news, it seems to me, is to read newspapers. Which doesn't sound as a solution, but as a glorified advertisement for themselves.

    Secondly: All articles refer to Breitbart and imply it's fake news, if not outright stating it. Now, I'm no fan of Breitbart and I don't really read the darn thing, but judging from the few articles I've read, they're not exactly fake. And Melissa Zimdars' list admits as much, labeling it 'political, unreliable and biased', which is exactly accurate in my opinion. But why then are outlets like The Daily Show (since Noah took over that is), or The Young Turks not on this list? They're all of those things.

    It has been speculated throughout the presidential campaign that a lot of Trump-supporters simply don't care anymore that what they are reading is fake. And I think, as a self-identifying socialist, that this is part of the reason. They don't care because, from their point of view, left-winged media relentlessly attack certain right-winged media for being biased, but let left-winged media that are just as bad get away scoff free. If we're ever to have a civilized discussion based on facts, we need to start searching for a shared reality (that doesn't seem to exist atm) and it is easy to blame Breitbart, Trump and everything they represent for that. But I do not feel comfortable doing that, because our media are just as bad, if not worse.

  31. Mainstream news this days:

    "Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government" says anonymous insider.

    Anonymous this, Anonymous that……that's your news folks.

    News should have verifiable sources, end of discussion.

    PBS is just butt hurt that Trump cut their budget, guess they had to get on that Trump hate train sooner or later.

  32. Media tells you what to think about. "Fake" news tells you how to feel about it. Obviously not fake, but their attempts at manipulating how you feel is very real.

  33. fake news is by these definitions the majority of proffesional or rather "mainstream" media outlets.
    and info wars.

  34. A very slick piece of propaganda indeed.

    Aristotle teaches us that we are what we repeatedly do. So, if one functions as a propagandist, ergo one is a propagandist. Lies of omission are still lies. Try as you might, this genie will not go back in the bottle.

  35. Traditional news lost influence of people and it was proven during the election. Businesses and campaigns paid them to influence people and they failed. It was obvious that most news media that's currently talking about fake news was pro-democrat. So, they started talking about fake news to discredit the people who they thought influenced the election from their 'the media influences thought' perspective..which is a justified one for a building full of journalists. What they don't understand is that people now take all news with a grain of salt and only listen to the news that makes them feel good/the agree with. So their role as an influencer has ended because they can now only speak to people they've already influenced. Monetarily this is a disaster. They also realised that talking about Trump increases ratings and it was a tug of war between do we get this ratings money or do we get this influence trafficking money.

  36. "Lost it's way a little."
    When does reporting on real events go from news to fake news or explicit propaganda?
    Certainly, that line is not where you disagree with or have an opposing point of view. But what about when the truth is twisted, misrepresented, or intentionally leaving critical details out (whether accidental or not) to back a particular point of view, political belief, of propaganda?

  37. We've been hijacked by far left political socialism/communism in universities for the past 10 years in collusion with the agenda pushed by the UN and EU to create confusion and division amongst the population. Pushing the "fight against fake news" while the ones pushing it out the hardest and calling anyone telling the truth as the ones perpetuating the fake news. All "conservative media" or anything not with the leftist mentality is deemed not politically correct and is being removed from social media by either just being deleted, financially disenfranchised, or is called a racist or bigot until silenced

  38. tl;dr: Just because it's propaganda doesn't mean it's fake. Truth selection through contextual biasing makes the best propaganda. Because it's real news, just ideologically slanted.

  39. i tend to assume that anything i have a strong emotional reaction to without being offered any information beyond a facebook blurb is fake. anyone telling the truth wouldn't feel compelled to engage with irrelevant parts of my psyche in order to get my attention.

  40. Many people today, especially on the conservative side of the political scale, equate "fake news" with anything they don't like. They use a few errors in the past as evidence that everything they hear is fake.

    If two news outlets report the same exact story with the exact same facts, but one labels it "good" and the other labels it "bad", one of those will be labeled "fake" because it didn't cater and spoon feed the opinion to the viewer.

    I hate Fox News, but they aren't "fake". I completely disagree with their personalities' political views, but that doesn't mean that a report they do on campaign finances is "fake".

    Everyone is biased. It's not possible to have unbiased news. Your opinion on something is not the responsibility of the news outlet you're consuming. You shouldn't have to need to be told whether something is good or bad. There are thousands of sources and anything can be checked and rechecked in minutes.

    The Media is not to blame. The populus is.

  41. I appreciate what you are doing, but you are talking so fast about a very complicated subject. Many people don't understand even the terminology you are throwing out at an incredible rate.

  42. For trump it is anything he does not like. Bias is not new. What you need to do is compare sources and try to remember the parts you know

  43. Any news you hear or see, you should simply fact check. Try to find the other sources reporting on the same thing. There are two sides to every coin. The bigger or more important the story is, the more you should fact check. But also be adaptive and pay attention to news that may be being suppressed. Anytime an eye catching or catastrophic event happens, also look at what is not being so blatantly being broadcast.

  44. Propaganda does not need to be misleading, the actual veracity of whatever is claimed or implied is of little importance to whether or not something is propaganda.

Related Post