Merkel says 'fake news' driving populism

[Melkandor]

There is plenty of fake and opinion news out there when it comes to politics. People have to be smart enough to see the difference between fact and opinion when it comes to any news they read.

Example:

News site 1: Obama stimulus plan put in place in attempt to bolster economy.

News site 2: Obama on verge of destroying economy with radical stimulus giveaway.

One is a fact, and one is an opinion.....but it's amazing how many people will take the opinion as a pure fact and go out and vote based on that opinion provided by the "news" they were watching. It really is a huge problem.

Where should we get our news then? CNN? HuffPo? WaPo? Fox?

[Renyo]

Where should we get our news then? CNN? HuffPo? WaPo? Fox?

Take different sources into consideration and think for yourself. If possible you can also look for the original source (like the original speech, interview or database).

[Damajin]

There is no discussion possible with people like you. So it's simple, if you choose to be manipulated by fake-news sites be my guess. For everyone else: there is alot of fake news out there and it seems to be a bit more "right-initiated" then "left". But both sides need to be carefull. Also as an European Union citizen it looks like the US is more infected by fake-news then the EU, but that is subjective.

If by discussion you mean convince me what you believe is accurate, then yes you're right.

No one should want the government regardless of where they are engaging in this kind of effort, or encourage private companies to do the same. It opens the door to far too much abuse in the name of preservation of power or status quo of any conceivable type. It takes the impetus of critical thinking away from the populace and gives it solely to those in positions of authority and means that in essence we approach the point where anything that isn't 'approved' of becomes fake, whether a news story or an idea.

We don't need government sanctioning what is news, what is real.

[Surfd]

Take different sources into consideration and think for yourself. If possible you can also look for the original source (like the original speech, interview or database).

Yet we live in an age where people like Damajin believe that any news, no matter how factually accurate or direct from the horses mouth, that disagrees with their point of view is untrustworthy / being manipulated by the other guys / is probably fabricated. Where instant "dribbles of shit by the minute on the minute" crap like facebook, twitter and the like can propagate junk news doing untold damage to credibility in mere seconds, that could potentially take months to counter, even at the most minimal level. Where you can literally play back a clip of Donald Trump saying something utterly mindbogglingly stupid from 10 minutes earlier and have people claim "he never said that".

The problem is that social media and its effects on the spread of information, both positive and negative, have outstripped our ability to properly process and vet that information by lightyears.

Suggesting we should all become investigative journalists in the effort to vet our news is ludicrous. The average person does not have the time or resources to essentially peer review national news sources. Those sources are supposed to be doing that shit themselves. That is what the institutions of actual journalism were supposed to be for.

[PC2]

Yet we live in an age where people like Damajin believe that any news, no matter how factually accurate or direct from the horses mouth, that disagrees with their point of view is untrustworthy / being manipulated by the other guys / is probably fabricated. Where instant "dribbles of shit by the minute on the minute" crap like facebook, twitter and the like can propagate junk news doing untold damage to credibility in mere seconds, that could potentially take months to counter, even at the most minimal level. Where you can literally play back a clip of Donald Trump saying something utterly mindbogglingly stupid from 10 minutes earlier and have people claim "he never said that".

The problem is that social media and its effects on the spread of information, both positive and negative, have outstripped our ability to properly process and vet that information by lightyears.

Suggesting we should all become investigative journalists in the effort to vet our news is ludicrous. The average person does not have the time or resources to essentially peer review national news sources. Those sources are supposed to be doing that shit themselves. That is what the institutions of actual journalism were supposed to be for.

Yet we live in an age where people like Merkel believe that any news, no matter how factually accurate or direct from the horses mouth, that disagrees with their point of view is untrustworthy / being manipulated by the other guys / is probably fabricated.

[Varitok]

She's been actively seeking to subdue legitimate news regarding the negative aspects of her poorly thought out refugee policy so it's of little surprise that she's trying to make use of heavy handed damage control. Fake news is indeed a problem - but when the mainstream media itself is guilty of it I can't help but wonder why she isn't drawing more attention to that simple fact.

Im canadian and I would love for someone who knows more about it or who's german to tell me what merkels end game is? Why is she taking in sooo many refugee's when its clearly not working and cause tons of problems.

[Deleted]

Suggesting we should all become investigative journalists in the effort to vet our news is ludicrous. The average person does not have the time or resources to essentially peer review national news sources.

When you consider the fact that some people have different definitions of "racism" and "sexism" than most of us do, I wouldn't trust even the most objective journalists to be unbiased anymore.

Why not just let the majority decide? You hate democracy when it doesn't work for you I suppose.

[Graeham]

Im canadian and I would love for someone who knows more about it or who's german to tell me what merkels end game is? Why is she taking in sooo many refugee's when its clearly not working and cause tons of problems.

Ignorance and incompetence in the best case scenario, a sinister attempt to force an agenda and cause deliberate harm to native Europeans at worst. It's worth noting that it isn't just an issue in Germany but many major European countries such as France and the United Kingdom too. With their leaders meeting frequently to discuss such things and generally ignoring the will of the people despite many pointing out that it isn't really a good thing at all.

Sadly there's a lot of people who don't live in the areas affected by excessive immigration and believe their cause to be righteous, brushing off those who do have to endure the consequences as 'bigots' and 'racists'. It can't be ignorance, though, because these same individuals are in a position to not live in such areas - and don't seem to be particularly fond of the 'cultural enrichment' they tout as a major selling point.

[Deleted]

Thank god the progessive left doesnt lie. How are those 2.000.000 scientists and doctors coming btw? All those highly educated refugees got jobs yet?

[Glorious Leader]

Ignorance and incompetence in the best case scenario, a sinister attempt to force an agenda and cause deliberate harm to native Europeans at worst. It's worth noting that it isn't just an issue in Germany but many major European countries such as France and the United Kingdom too. With their leaders meeting frequently to discuss such things and generally ignoring the will of the people despite many pointing out that it isn't really a good thing at all.

Sadly there's a lot of people who don't live in the areas affected by excessive immigration and believe their cause to be righteous, brushing off those who do have to endure the consequences as 'bigots' and 'racists'. It can't be ignorance, though, because these same individuals are in a position to not live in such areas - and don't seem to be particularly fond of the 'cultural enrichment' they tout as a major selling point.

For the record merkel is a neo liberal shill whos been pushing austerity on the rest of the E.U. She is not progressive left. Although to be fair its not clear exactly who youre refering to?

[Deleted]

Left have produced more 'fake news' than anyone ever. No wonder CEO of facebook is relucant to 'fixing' it on his website - you don't cut the branch supporting you.

Choice of words is important in this, because if we were talking about 'fake information', not 'fake news', it would be a whole different story (yet still almost only in US) - all conspiracy theories could be accounted into this, making left look like angels, compared to things sprouted by right-side.

But sticking to 'news' part - hysterical anti-Trump propaganda that left-side media still can't decide wheter to apologise for or keep excusing themselves for is the biggest proof of who sprouted real 'fake news' over 'social networks' or whatever. Wheter you are right-sided or left-sided, putting SJWs of all kinds out of debate into the same space as so-called alt-right or whatever seems beneficial.

[JohnBrown1917]

Left have produced more 'fake news' than anyone ever. No wonder CEO of facebook is relucant to 'fixing' it on his website - you don't cut the branch supporting you.

Choice of words is important in this, because if we were talking about 'fake information', not 'fake news', it would be a whole different story (yet still almost only in US) - all conspiracy theories could be accounted into this, making left look like angels, compared to things sprouted by right-side.

But sticking to 'news' part - hysterical anti-Trump propaganda that left-side media still can't decide wheter to apologise for or keep excusing themselves for is the biggest proof of who sprouted real 'fake news' over 'social networks' or whatever. Wheter you are right-sided or left-sided, putting SJWs of all kinds out of debate into the same space as so-called alt-right or whatever seems beneficial.

The news sites that supported Clinton over Sanders are left-wing?


lol

[Damajin]

Yet we live in an age where people like Damajin believe that any news, no matter how factually accurate or direct from the horses mouth, that disagrees with their point of view is untrustworthy / being manipulated by the other guys / is probably fabricated. Where instant "dribbles of shit by the minute on the minute" crap like facebook, twitter and the like can propagate junk news doing untold damage to credibility in mere seconds, that could potentially take months to counter, even at the most minimal level. Where you can literally play back a clip of Donald Trump saying something utterly mindbogglingly stupid from 10 minutes earlier and have people claim "he never said that".

The problem is that social media and its effects on the spread of information, both positive and negative, have outstripped our ability to properly process and vet that information by lightyears.

Suggesting we should all become investigative journalists in the effort to vet our news is ludicrous. The average person does not have the time or resources to essentially peer review national news sources. Those sources are supposed to be doing that shit themselves. That is what the institutions of actual journalism were supposed to be for.

Kid, I'm not that dogmatic. Thanks for the vote of confidence though.

We live in a corporate media world, pretending that the news isn't filtered to support agendas suitable to that and governmental continuance is pretty ridiculous. Then along comes alternative media, citizen media and the like where people use this technology to break the monopoly on both viewpoints and news focus and people in power both don't know how to deal with it and can't overtly stop it so we have this demonizing of it and the highlighting of legitimately fubar examples of alternative media failures to instill a lack of faith and trust in it.

The quote you're responding to wasn't suggesting everyone become investigative journalists per se, it was suggesting that people use the thing most important to investigative journalists which is critical thinking and evaluation skills. For as much as you want to slag alternative media sources for bullshit artistry you have to realize we've lived under a literal monopoly of it since the invention of the tv and creation of the nightly news. Propaganda was the tool of corporations and governments first and has been utilized far more extensively than any 'fake news' that has come about in the digital age.

[Varitok]

Left have produced more 'fake news' than anyone ever. No wonder CEO of facebook is relucant to 'fixing' it on his website - you don't cut the branch supporting you.

Choice of words is important in this, because if we were talking about 'fake information', not 'fake news', it would be a whole different story (yet still almost only in US) - all conspiracy theories could be accounted into this, making left look like angels, compared to things sprouted by right-side.

But sticking to 'news' part - hysterical anti-Trump propaganda that left-side media still can't decide wheter to apologise for or keep excusing themselves for is the biggest proof of who sprouted real 'fake news' over 'social networks' or whatever. Wheter you are right-sided or left-sided, putting SJWs of all kinds out of debate into the same space as so-called alt-right or whatever seems beneficial.

Im sorry, I call BS on that.

There is fake news on both sides but the right has far more bullshit stories and at best has the same.

I don't see myself as left or right by the way, I just will agree with whoever I think has the best vision for my countries future, screw having party loyalty.

[jackofwind]

Oh it has, people have wisen up to the fake news bullshit that most of the mainstream sites post.

Most people still get their news from fucking Facebook feeds, don't kid yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

Left have produced more 'fake news' than anyone ever. No wonder CEO of facebook is relucant to 'fixing' it on his website - you don't cut the branch supporting you.

Choice of words is important in this, because if we were talking about 'fake information', not 'fake news', it would be a whole different story (yet still almost only in US) - all conspiracy theories could be accounted into this, making left look like angels, compared to things sprouted by right-side.

But sticking to 'news' part - hysterical anti-Trump propaganda that left-side media still can't decide wheter to apologise for or keep excusing themselves for is the biggest proof of who sprouted real 'fake news' over 'social networks' or whatever. Wheter you are right-sided or left-sided, putting SJWs of all kinds out of debate into the same space as so-called alt-right or whatever seems beneficial.

So do you draw the line at news that goes on television? Where is the line between fake news and fake information being disseminated as fact to mass audiences?

[Deleted]

The news sites that supported Clinton over Sanders are left-wing?


lol

See, the best thing to do is abandoning all labels in this kind of discussion. If we used label 'left' as you did, we'd assume 'right' supported her. And that would be real fake news.

[Nadiru]

Cass Sunstein is a real piece of shit, I agree.

Good point on the escalation in urgency and dwindling grip as well. I think what truly scares them is as you said an inoculated middle and a hyper partisan right, which is where things are getting to with increased frequency. The media and mediums no longer work because they can be completely avoided which is why the entertainment industry is becoming increasingly politicized but as we see with declining NFL ratings and box office numbers down people are stepping out of that mix as well.

Sunstein isn't evil, he just hasn't thought out the problem extensively.

A summary: “Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled “Conspiracy Theories,” dealing with the risks and possible government responses to false conspiracy theories resulting from “cascades” of faulty information within groups that may ultimately lead to violence. In this article they wrote, “The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be.” They go on to propose that, “the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups” They suggest, among other tactics, “Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.” The authors declare that there are five responses a government can take toward conspiracy theories: “We can readily imagine a series of possible responses:

1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing.
2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.
3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories.
4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech.
5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help.”

However, the authors advocate that each “instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), and (5).”

There are two axioms which underpin Cass Sunstein's work: That the NSA has the budget to reach the unreachable unaligned I mentioned before (remains to be seen,) and that right-wing social groups function like left-wing social groups (they don't.) The Left sees social capital through the model that every individual action increases or costs status among their peers, hence their fixation with virtue signalling. The Right sees social capital as something VERY different. The don't see it as a gamble. The left sees social capital as a gambling chip whose payout trends towards profit upon proper cultural synchronization. The right sees social capital as a vital assets to cultivate over time via risk mitigation and reinvestment.

Any attempt to infiltrate a rightist community will reinforce the value of their terms of social capital. For example, a rightist social capital conversation might look like this:

"Oh, we're under attack. must be the damn jews again"
"Yep, probably the jews"
"hail kek!".

A leftist, on the other hand, will see infiltration as a threat to their accumulated social capital and will seek to purge it.

[Deleted]

So do you draw the line at news that goes on television? Where is the line between fake news and fake information being disseminated as fact to mass audiences?

Nowhere. Histroy taught us all a lesson. All kind of suppressing freedon of speech will most likely hurt a lot more people than it was supposed to protect, just as it did in the past.

[Rennadrel]

Anthem is becoming a reality.

[jackofwind]

Nowhere. Histroy taught us all a lesson. All kind of suppressing freedon of speech will most likely hurt a lot more people than it was supposed to protect, just as it did in the past.

Which means that they're the same thing, right? Which also means that the "right" has way more than the "left" because of all the crazy conspiracy shit.

Which is the opposite of what you said earlier, when you divided them into two categories of "fake news" vs "fake information". That's just wordsmithing to make a false comparison.