By 2020 News and Fake News May Be Indistinguishable...

[Allenseiei]

But that is already time consuming, I know that I spend a lot of time validating the stuff I talk about .... if in the future reality and fiction are literally indistinguishable - how do you proceed then?

Do we go back to eyewitness testimony ... because that worked so well

If you don't want to contrast information then you only have the option to trust to some extent your information provider while knowing the back of your head that there are probably false bits of information. There is no foolproof way to make sure the ones who supposedly "police" the new system won't abuse it too to sway public opinion.

[Garnier Fructis]

Trump calls Mexico and tells them they'll say the military to deal with bad hombre. - Debunked by Mexico and US spokesperson.
Trump anti-LGBT EO. - Debunked initially by Trump, then a supposed "leak" happened but it simply didn't happen.
Trump hanged the phone on AU PM. - Debunked by AU PM himself.
Trump remove election penalties on Russia - It was an old Obama law project that has simply been validated and pushed, as planned by the Obama admin, about penalties that weren't supposed to be there, yet were because of a bureaucracy problem.
Mother dies because of Trump's ban - She died before the ban happened. It was also backed by the Imam who took care of it.

Nice observations. Your argument for the LGBT one is very weak, though.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Nice observations. Your argument for the LGBT one is very weak, though.

The point is more that the LGBT EO never actually existed and Trump literally said he would not touch LGBT rights.

[NED funded]

Madrid para Soros.

[Sunseeker]

If I have to do the legwork to find out if you're telling me the truth, what's the point of having you at all, media?

Which is exactly the risk the media is running and is why people on all sides are truly frustrated with the media, because they're making people have to think and work and people don't want to do that. It's like exercising and eating well. It's good for you to do, but few people actually want to put the effort into doing it.

People aren't mad at the media because the media is lying people are mad because those lies are making them do their own work. Nobody cares if the media lies when you don't have to do any work because of it. People are upset that they can't just "believe" the media now...which they really never should have done to begin with.

[araine]

Not if i only listen to NPR and not get my news from twitter and fb

they are looking to shut down NPR and PBS since they arent presenting the news in the way donny tinyhands and president bannon wants them be done,

[Dug]

What most consider fake news is just news they disagree with. We'll be fine.

[BiggestNoob]

That's 2017 if you only get your news from CNN.

[THE Bigzoman]

Which is exactly the risk the media is running and is why people on all sides are truly frustrated with the media, because they're making people have to think and work and people don't want to do that. It's like exercising and eating well. It's good for you to do, but few people actually want to put the effort into doing it.

People aren't mad at the media because the media is lying people are mad because those lies are making them do their own work. Nobody cares if the media lies when you don't have to do any work because of it. People are upset that they can't just "believe" the media now...which they really never should have done to begin with.

I'm not going to contend with why you think people on all sides are mad at the media. That's up for speculation.

Still though,the media's job is to inform the public.

People are so tired of being misinformed by the media that they're doing the legwork themselves. They're verifying sources and confirming stuff all on their own, and the number of people doing so are on the rise. Alternative media (not fake news) is starting to attract more people because of media misinformation.

So if people are starting to do the media's job for them, then why are they even here? Why do they exist?

I had a similar exchange in one of my threads with some purple monster guy. I forget his name.

[Fitheach]

I remember when Obama spoke about this problem, how the internet is just a wild west of outlets. We need some sort of curating committee, moderation ect. Like what Twitter and Facebook are trying to do with algorithms and committees. Especially with the Alt-Right radicalizing people online. The internet and technology are becoming both a blessing to progress and a disruptive force against it.

[Darkeon]

I remember when Obama spoke about this problem, how the internet is just a wild west of outlets. We need some sort of curating committee, moderation ect. Like what Twitter and Facebook are trying to do with algorithms and committees. Especially with the Alt-Right radicalizing people online. The internet and technology are becoming both a blessing to progress and a disruptive force against it.

Bait too stronk!

[Vash The Stampede]

Only if you're an idiot. Beware of stupid people in large numbers.

[Runenwächter]

It didnt take real time nationwide super tech to make congress approve invading Irak.
It didnt even need reasonable levels of intelligence or evidence.

What it needed was the will to do it in the first place and some shitty photoshops and an anonymous source as a pretense to get the thing rolling.

[TITAN308]

Not if i only listen to NPR and not get my news from twitter and fb

I'm a fan of NPR, but some of their shows quite clearly have an agenda.

[Auxora]

That only works for someone standing still and it's really easy to tell that it's modified. Kind of like CGI in movies, it's fairly easy to pick out.

Regardless, as long as you get your news directly or from reputable news outlets it's not a problem. It's only a problem when people get "news" from fb/twitter/youtube or fringey basement wanna-be news sites, or the super-biased sites. Think critically, fact-check with reputable news sites, don't just get your news from sites like Breitbart or HuffPo and you'll be fine. That's true today and it's not something to wait until 2020 for.

[Vizardlorde]

I'm a fan of NPR, but some of their shows quite clearly have an agenda.

They have guests from both sides who are allowed to speak freely and allow listeners to form their own opinion while providing factual information.

[Zyster]

How will the left ever get anything done without being able to produce fake news? I think this may be problematic. As much as you guy do a lot of terrible things, I believe you should still be able to have a platform to try and sway the gullible. It is the great part of living in the US after all.

[TITAN308]

They have guests from both sides who are allowed to speak freely and allow listeners to form their own opinion while providing factual information.

Except some of their news show just have one side on more than others and when they do allow the other side on the host is aggressive / hostile towards them.

Like I said, I am a huge fan of NPR, but squeaky clean? No. Hardly.

[Sunseeker]

Still though,the media's job is to inform the public.

No, actually it isn't. That's the problem, people think someone else should do the heavy lifting for them. It's the public's job to inform themselves, they just don't like to put in the effort and they've been taught to not bother because "the media will inform you".

[Spectral]

They have guests from both sides who are allowed to speak freely and allow listeners to form their own opinion while providing factual information.

I like the format at times, but there's a pretty significant amount of the time where there's no damn way I'm going to spend the time go look up cited facts to really figure out who's got it closer to right. I usually wouldn't impugn the integrity of guests, but facts are regularly used as soldiers, thrown back and forth to contradict each other, and ultimately you just kind of have to pick someone to believe sometimes (unless you're willing to spend a lot more time).

There are also a lot of topics that don't deserve the "both sides!" treatment. NPR's rarely one of the guilty parties in doing that sort of thematic thing, but it's always a risky part of being neutral.