What Is *Real* News?

[Fat Mac]

r/the_donald

[baskev]

From China/Russia/Korea Communist Party.

They are created by the people and for the people !

Any news network with Ads in it cannot be trusted.

You forget america.....at least its going their with trump scarecrow, and constantly pissed looking mouth of sauron.

[Deleted]

Which is a biased statement. You literally say every media news station is lying.

I'm really lost with your use of words news/bias/lies/whatever. I will just stick to common understanding that anything that comes from so-called 'news stations' is 'news'.

[Deleted]

I'm really lost with your use of words news/bias/lies/whatever. I will just stick to common understanding that anything that comes from so-called 'news stations' is 'news'.

Thats just wrong. Propaganda is no news.

Examples: Russia Today, Infowars

[Astalnar]

These days in order to get a clear picture of what is true from reading the news you need ot know couple of things. You need to know what their agenda or stance on a certain issue is, and then read between the lines. And when you see an outrage, scale it back until it's not outrageous anymore, because for sure they inflated it in the process.

The MSM doesn't care about facts, they care about their narrative. So no matter what source left or right, remove the narrative and pursue the facts, and you'll see what is real news, and what is not.

[Zeek Daniels]

I think "real" news is news presented without bias or opinion. If your just reporting facts you should report all facts and not hide facts that would tell the whole truth about things.

For instance one of my big issues with the reporting on all the African American encounters with police that turned violent was there were no encounters reported of Caucasian Americans and their encounters with police that turned violent. Even when there were plenty of stories of drunk or high white kids getting shot while resisting arrest, another story i remember was of a kid getting pulled over and recording the encounter and getting into a fight with the officer and getting shot.

Were those big stories? Nope, Local stories but not national stories.

The news media reported facts true? But instead of presenting all cases of police arrests ending in shooting they only focused on black ones. Painting a picture of racism. Instead they should have focused on Police training, why are police so trigger happy, why do they shoot so many times, why do they not assist the victim medically.

The News needs to stop being bias and just report whats going on in the world, stop looking for ratings and trying to get ppl riled up.

[Deleted]

For instance one of my big issues with the reporting on all the African American encounters with police that turned violent was there were no encounters reported of Caucasian Americans and their encounters with police that turned violent. Even when there were plenty of stories of drunk or high white kids getting shot while resisting arrest, another story i remember was of a kid getting pulled over and recording the encounter and getting into a fight with the officer and getting shot.

That just shows you want to be served in your own filter bubble. You want to read news that fit to your bias.

"I want a story about a white guy being shot by a police officer to act as if there was no special violence against black people"

[Linkedblade]

News that reports with minimal to no bias.

[schwarzkopf]

Stuff that is real news:
1. Stuff directly recorded from the source played in full or played with reasonable duration.
2. Stuff reported from reputable sources, with source references - in this case there is a small chance the news will turn out false, but it is still real news due to the intent to find the truth. That is - people make mistakes. All news sources are biased, however bias comes in the commentary, not the facts.
3. Stuff determined by multiple scientific sources with appropriately tight uncertainly (e.g. Higgs Boson is at 6-sigma certainty).
4. Stuff you actually see and hear - of course this is only real news to you personally unless you have anything else to backup your claims.

Stuff that isn't real news:
1. Short edited clips of a source, with overlaid music or commentary
2. Stuff reported from sources that have the intent to mislead - in this case there is a small chance the news will turn out true, but it is still fake news due to the intent to mislead. Note intent to mislead (e.g. Breitbart) is not the same as bias (e.g. Foxnews).
3. Any fictional or mythological text (e.g. Harry Potter, Bible, The Avengers etc)
4. Stuff someone else said they saw and/or heard.

[Deleted]

4. Stuff you actually see and hear - of course this is only real news to you personally unless you have anything else to backup your claims.

Our senses are so easy to manipulate. Anecdotal evidence is really problematic. But as you wrote yourself, you would have to backup claims.

[schwarzkopf]

Our senses are so easy to maninpulate.

Indeed - but whilst we all live in a delusion - the representation of the delusion in our senses is for all intents and purposes classified as real.

What I'm about is stuff you see and hear etc that isn't open to interpretation.

If I'm standing outside in a rainstorm listening to an inaugural address - then it was raining at the time I was listening to the inaugural address.

Of course - the reaction of the crowd being positive or negative in response - that's not an (for the most part) observation, that's a deduction and not covered by the same rules.

[Theodarzna]

The Russell Conjugations just checks for bias, and not if a news is true.

As i said, you need to check different sources. Yes, thats a lot of work, but the only way to go.

The most insidious form of fake news is the use of Russell Conjugations. Frank Luntz stumbled on much the same concept unaware of Russell’s earlier construction. By holding focus-groups with new real time technology that let participants share emotional responses to changes in authoritative language, Luntz was lead to make a stunning discovery that pushed Russell’s construction out of the realm of linguistics and into the realm of applied psychology. What he found was extraordinary: many if not most people form their opinions based solely on whatever Russell conjugation is presented to them and not on the underlying facts. That is, the very same person will oppose a “death tax” while having supported an “estate tax” seconds earlier even though these taxes are two descriptions of the exact same underlying object. Further, such is the power of emotive conjugation that we are generally not even aware that we hold such contradictory opinions. Thus “Illegal aliens” and “undocumented immigrants” may be the same people, but the former label leads to calls for deportation while the latter one instantly causes many of us to consider amnesty programs and paths to citizenship.

If we accept that Russell Conjugation keeps us from even seeing that we do not hold consistent opinions on facts, we see a possible new answer to a puzzle that dates from the birth of the web: “If the internet democratized information, why has its social impact been so much slower than many of us expected?” Assuming that our actions are based not on what we know but upon how we feel about what we know, we see that traditional media has all but lost control of gate-keeping our information, but not yet how it is emotively shaded. In fact, it is relatively simple to write a computer program to crawl factually accurate news stories against a look-up table of Russell conjugates to see the exact bias of every supposedly objective story.

Thus the answer to the puzzle of our inaction it seems may be that we built an information superhighway for all, but neglected to build an empathy network alongside it to democratize what we feel. We currently get our information from more sources than ever before, but, at least until recently, we have turned to traditional institutions to guide our empathy. Information, as the saying goes, wants to be free. But we fear authentic emotions will get us into trouble with our social group, and so continue to look to others to tell us what is safe to feel.

Checking Russell Conjugations can tell you what that media outlet wants you to think or feel about an issue. The other big one is cross checking sources, especially to avoid lies by omission.

[PACOX]

But who are good sources?


NYT?
Fox?
CNN?
Breitbart?
TYT?
NBC?
Daily Mail?
Slate?
Huffpost?
Buzzfeed?
NPR?
PBS?
AP?
RT?

[Deleted]

It is great to talk to people who just quote the internet without giving sources.

Let mel help you on this:

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27181

And no, you do not cover every false news with that. In special not the ones that do not follow that pattern.

"Aliens landed on the moon."

- - - Updated - - -

But who are good sources?


NYT?
Fox?
CNN?
Breitbart?
TYT?
NBC?
Daily Mail?
Slate?
Huffpost?
Buzzfeed?
NPR?
PBS?
AP?
RT?

Read all of them. Be sure you know what their background is. RT is russias propaganda outlet. Breitbart is a alt-right-propaganda outlet. When you read propaganda sources, take every report with a big grain of salt.

If you read RT, you have to know that its more about the russian governments opinion than about news. If you read breitbart, expect a mix out of propaganda and right-wing bias.

[Mormolyce]

Verified with reliable sources.

- - - Updated - - -

Read all of them. Be sure you know what their background is. RT is russias propaganda outlet. Breitbart is a alt-right-propaganda outlet. When you read propaganda sources, take every report with a big grain of salt.

If you read RT, you have to know that its more about the russian governments opinion than about news. If you read breitbart, expect a mix out of propaganda and right-wing bias.

The only thing you can take away from reading propaganda is the strategy that they are using to lie to you.

[Stelio Kontos]

Read all of them. Be sure you know what their background is. RT is russias propaganda outlet. Breitbart is a alt-right-propaganda outlet. When you read propaganda sources, take every report with a big grain of salt.

If you read RT, you have to know that its more about the russian governments opinion than about news. If you read breitbart, expect a mix out of propaganda and right-wing bias.

Same goes for Buzzfeed, HuffPo, and Slate on the other side. All three are agenda driven from left-leaning sources.

[Deleted]

The only thing you can take away from reading propaganda is the strategy that they are using to lie to you.

And what they intend to get with it. Which sometimes is a lot of work.

[Vizardlorde]

If you are unable to tell reality from fiction do the world a favor and go back to school or refrain from voting until you actually know.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Anything that lets you get you hand on the source material, without comments. Everything else is not news, it's editorial.

[schwarzkopf]

Hint as to how to tell fake news from biased news:

Event : 50,000 people turn out in light drizzle to watch a dude speak.

Fake news will say 500,000 people turned out for an awesome performance, or no-one showed up at all.
Biased news will say 50,000 people turned out which is an awesome crowd considering the rain, or only 50,000 people turned out when they were expecting far more.

- - - Updated - - -

If you are unable to tell reality from fiction do the world a favor and go back to school or refrain from voting until you actually know.

That probably was a valid statement last year ... but this year reality is becoming very hard to distinguish from fantasy. The nature of the beast has changed.

It is just a limit of our brain's processing capacity:

"When we are overwhelmed with false, or potentially false, statements, our brains pretty quickly become so overworked that we stop trying to sift through everything."

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...t-brain-214658