"Fake News", Bias in the media and the issue of information avaliability.

[Theodarzna]

In the age of Trump and a lot of these revolts against establishment parties, institutions, and news outlets, the term "fake news" has come into popular usage. Fake News, as in outright false stories, are fairly rare. Or at least, are easy to spot as probably not true. Things like a Crystal Pyramid found in the Bermuda Triangle are an example of a story that is outright not true. The issue most people take with any news outlet, be it Brietbart or the New York Times, or really anyone is rarely directly fake or invented stories. Typically its the issue of ommitting information, or what is reported versus not reported.

In the age of the internet it is possible for all information and events to be seen. All information, all events, all facts can be found with enough dedication and searching. No news outlet, none, can report all information. You couldn't possibly absorb every bit of information that could be reported to you. Every murder, every robbery, every dead child, every event would just be disjointed meaningless noise. Imagine an endless stream explaining in chronicled fashion every event that happened on a given day. A news outlet does not report every single fact, some information is news and other information is not news.

I’ve long argued that the chief problem of media bias is not “fake news,” but instead how particular news outlet prioritizes what is news and what isn’t, what is emphasized in The Narrative and what is skimmed over. There’s an endless abundance of events in this world, so what makes the headlines versus what is relegated to the police scanner chatter are likely politically important decisions. Even if they are not overtly political decisions, its hard to argue they aren't shaped by a worldview. Because in the end all a News outlet, a journalist, can do is write a coherent narrative out of random chaos. Narration is what gives the incoherent string of events some semblance of meaning and importance.

Bringing ourselves back to the internet, the issue emerges that because all information is now available to John Q Public; it becomes hard to ignore why some outlets find some events meaningful enough to be reported, and others do not. What is not covered, versus what is covered, becomes in it of itself a a story. The public now asks why is X news and not Y? Why is Y insignificant to you but not me? Why do I see this and not that. The questions began to rise from there, are these narratives a reflection of reality? Do they reflect the world I see? Can these people or those people be trusted to tell me about things when they don't report a lot of seemingly important events. How any outlet gets around the age of the internet is going to be the challange for credibility. Because to really have credibility requires public trust. But mass public trust seems fleetingly rare since anyone can look up events and compare them. Anyone can find out what is not being reported.

What do you think? Do you think news outlets can get around this problem? Does the public fundementally msunderstand what News outlets are capable of?

[Kokolums]

There is no clear definition of the term "fake news". As such, the topic is up for debate depending on which side eventually emerges as the winner. its almost impossible to do research as we now have a split narrative on every event that occurs and a split definition on all the terms used. By declaring you side with one version of the definition or the other, all you do is declare which side you are on.

[Theodarzna]

There is no clear definition of the term "fake news". As such, the topic is up for debate depending on which side eventually emerges as the winner. its almost impossible to do research as we now have a split narrative on every event that occurs and a split definition on all the terms used. By declaring you side with one version of the definition or the other, all you do is declare which side you are on.

We always had multiple narratives, but before now, unless a narrative enjoyed support from some center of power, it would remain unknown and unheard.

[Reverb256]

The people who still believe that legacy media conveys Absolute Truth are a dwindling fringe minority.

It's not even really about 'new media' vs 'old media'. It's about applying critical thinking (ie. the opposite of ideological purity-testing) to every single piece of information you come across.

If your brain is too busy dismissing all non-conforming information as 'hate' or 'conspiracy theories', you're incapable of using your critical thinking skills. It's a short-circuit, by design.

[Fincayra]

There is no clear definition of the term "fake news". As such, the topic is up for debate depending on which side eventually emerges as the winner. its almost impossible to do research as we now have a split narrative on every event that occurs and a split definition on all the terms used. By declaring you side with one version of the definition or the other, all you do is declare which side you are on.

That's because there is multiple types of fake news, and everyone disagrees on the worst type.

My definition of the worst type of fake news is taking some of the facts of an event and reporting the event completely out of context. For instance, this story:

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/polit...pan/index.html

Trump did indeed feed koi fish with the Japanese prime minister, and he did indeed dump the rest of his fish food into the pond. However, the story is crafted in such a way that it leaves out facts like the prime minister dumped his fish food in first, and that Trump did so after he saw the prime minister do it. So this story is fake news. Selective reporting of facts like the OP mentions is the worst type of news to me. Give me everything and let me make my own decisions. Don't make my decisions for me.

[Endus]

The media provides us with three things, and none of these things are new; they have been core to the news media for well over a century, and there has not been any particular change in any of them.

The first is the provision of facts. Facts are facts. They're not up for debate. If you feel facts are misrepresented, then there must be additional facts that provide greater context; by all means, provide more facts. But you don't get to hand-wave the facts as they are; you can only ever add more facts.

The second is analysis of the facts. While analysis is predicated on the idea that the basis of facts is sufficient, unless you can provide the actual facts that the analysis has excluded, you don't have grounds for complaint on that front (at least, in pointing to the chasm where such facts must lie, but haven't been examined). Beyond that, you can pick at the particular methodology of the analysis, but you'd better be approaching that from a fact-and-logic-based angle; if the analysis contradicts your gut feelings, tough nuts. That means you're wrong, unless you can back your gut feelings up, better than the analysis in question.

The third is editorial opinion. This moves beyond analysis, but is still critically important. Questions of philosophy, ethics, the "what ought to be done" of any question, that's editorial opinion. This isn't going anywhere, and complaining that it can't be fully backed up with facts misses the point; it's a dishonest criticism, since opinion necessarily is moving beyond mere analysis of the facts.

Now, a brief note on the term "bias". In a historical sense, all records contain bias. That doesn't mean they are inaccurate. It means a historical work on the history of the Roman Empire is "biased" towards issues relevant to the Roman Empire, for instance. This sense is often incorrectly confused with the idea of "bias" in the sense of "inaccurate due to the author's irrational feelings or incorrect information". The former does not suggest the latter, and the idea that all media is "biased" in the latter sense is just absolute, baseless hokum.

Disagreeing with an editorial opinion piece does not mean the author of such was "biased", in that latter sense. It's just as likely (and arguably, much more so, in the case of reputable outlets) that it's the reader whose bias is causing them to dismiss basic reasonable sense.

In all cases, if you've got an issue with a story, you need to be able to provide facts and reason to justify your position. Because disagreement that's offered without such can be summarily dismissed out of hand, without needing any justification; you haven't backed up your position, so I don't need to back up my refutation. If you're not bringing facts and reason to the table, you're whining, and nobody likes whining.

[Machismo]

In the age of Trump and a lot of these revolts against establishment parties, institutions, and news outlets, the term "fake news" has come into popular usage. Fake News, as in outright false stories, are fairly rare. Or at least, are easy to spot as probably not true. Things like a Crystal Pyramid found in the Bermuda Triangle are an example of a story that is outright not true. The issue most people take with any news outlet, be it Brietbart or the New York Times, or really anyone is rarely directly fake or invented stories. Typically its the issue of ommitting information, or what is reported versus not reported.

In the age of the internet it is possible for all information and events to be seen. All information, all events, all facts can be found with enough dedication and searching. No news outlet, none, can report all information. You couldn't possibly absorb every bit of information that could be reported to you. Every murder, every robbery, every dead child, every event would just be disjointed meaningless noise. Imagine an endless stream explaining in chronicled fashion every event that happened on a given day. A news outlet does not report every single fact, some information is news and other information is not news.

I’ve long argued that the chief problem of media bias is not “fake news,” but instead how particular news outlet prioritizes what is news and what isn’t, what is emphasized in The Narrative and what is skimmed over. There’s an endless abundance of events in this world, so what makes the headlines versus what is relegated to the police scanner chatter are likely politically important decisions. Even if they are not overtly political decisions, its hard to argue they aren't shaped by a worldview. Because in the end all a News outlet, a journalist, can do is write a coherent narrative out of random chaos. Narration is what gives the incoherent string of events some semblance of meaning and importance.

Bringing ourselves back to the internet, the issue emerges that because all information is now available to John Q Public; it becomes hard to ignore why some outlets find some events meaningful enough to be reported, and others do not. What is not covered, versus what is covered, becomes in it of itself a a story. The public now asks why is X news and not Y? Why is Y insignificant to you but not me? Why do I see this and not that. The questions began to rise from there, are these narratives a reflection of reality? Do they reflect the world I see? Can these people or those people be trusted to tell me about things when they don't report a lot of seemingly important events. How any outlet gets around the age of the internet is going to be the challange for credibility. Because to really have credibility requires public trust. But mass public trust seems fleetingly rare since anyone can look up events and compare them. Anyone can find out what is not being reported.

What do you think? Do you think news outlets can get around this problem? Does the public fundementally msunderstand what News outlets are capable of?

Considering you have been caught spreading fake news about "platform versus publisher" multiple times in the past few days, I think we all know where the actual problem is. The problem is not the media, the problem is people spreading information they know to be fake, and not caring. I mean, if you want the solution, it's simple... stop repeating shit you know to be false.

If you want unbiased news that only answers who, what, where, when, and how... you can find that through the AP, and even Reuters.

[Kokolums]

We always had multiple narratives, but before now, unless a narrative enjoyed support from some center of power, it would remain unknown and unheard.

Well like I say, trust has collapsed in the US.

Back in 2000, 50% of republicans actually trusted the mainstream press. Today it is basically zero. That's a stark transformation and it means we TRULY have a split narrative now. It becomes impossible to push forward on any issue because we are totally diverging on all topics. Civil war is inevitable because this cannot continue. Whichever side wins will get to define them (and it is almost assuredly the far right that will win).

When you have a massive disenfranchised population in your own nation, the ONLY escape from civil war is to make sure those people feel they are empowered and have a future. So that actually means we need to empower disenfranchised white republican voters and do it really really fast. I don't care where your personal politics lie, that is the ONLY play here.

I think we will not do that, so civil war incoming.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

Trump claims the mainstream media is full of fake news.

Fox News is the largest mainstream media outlet.

Trump therefore claims Fox News is fake news.

Tucker Carlson's head explodes.

[Paranoid Android]

Geezus this crap from Theo again.

All I say is you can be a critic of the media but its the dumbest shit in the world they follow a person who lies on a daily basis and almost every news outlet they love, has the most blatant bullshit and supports the liar in chief.

[PC2]

There is no clear definition of the term "fake news".

Obviously it's any report about an event that didn't happen or fabricated data. Ideally there would be audio-video evidence behind every news report, but if there's not then we have to assume a news report might not be totally accurate. The rise of 'deepfakes' will make this more challenging in the future.

As such, the topic is up for debate depending on which side eventually emerges as the winner.

Real news wins because over the long-term people will realize that fake news doesn't match up with their experiences. Like if a fake news source is saying that violence is skyrocketing every year, then eventually you'll realize that it's fake when you can see that all the people around you aren't getting murdered.

If you mean left/right political parties there is no "winner". One party will lead government for a while, if their policy solves society's problems then they get to lead for longer. If their performance is bad then a different party will lead for a while.

[Theodarzna]

Trump claims the mainstream media is full of fake news.

Fox News is the largest mainstream media outlet.

Trump therefore claims Fox News is fake news.

Tucker Carlson's head explodes.

It would largely depend on what he claims is "fake news". I'd not say these outlets are saying things that are false, they are usually omitting information, or simply reporting some stories over others and it is hard not to see the over arching narrative these outlets read out as.

- - - Updated - - -

Geezus this crap from Theo again.

All I say is you can be a critic of the media but its the dumbest shit in the world they follow a person who lies on a daily basis and almost every news outlet they love, has the most blatant bullshit and supports the liar in chief.

I'm glad you participated. I don't actually think I've ever personally even given my stamp of approval on Trump. Infact I might even need a citation on that one.

[Stelio Kontos]

I'm glad you participated. I don't actually think I've ever personally even given my stamp of approval on Trump. Infact I might even need a citation on that one.

You know how it is with some folks; if you don't agree with their narrative 110%, you are a Nazi.

[Theodarzna]

You know how it is with some folks; if you don't agree with their narrative 110%, you are a Nazi.

Well I do lead the Fash crew here on MMO-Champ, so that's fair.

- - - Updated - - -

Obviously it's any report about an event that didn't happen or fabricated data. Ideally there would be audio-video evidence behind every news report, but if there's not then we have to assume a news report might not be totally accurate. The rise of 'deepfakes' will make this more challenging in the future.



Real news wins because over the long-term people will realize that fake news doesn't match up with their experiences. Like if a fake news source is saying that violence is skyrocketing every year, then eventually you'll realize that it's fake when you can see that all the people around you aren't getting murdered.

If you mean left/right political parties there is no "winner". One party will lead government for a while, if their policy solves society's problems then they get to lead for longer. If their performance is bad then a different party will lead for a while.

"Real News" doesn't exist for the precise problem I outlined. One cannot possibly process all information. All of it will be filtered and nobody will be assured to percieve reality in the exact same way.

[Wyrt]

Most of the actual fake news comes from internet memes and other sources where there's no fact checking and no accountability. Then it occasionally gets picked up by influential people*cough*trump*cough* who then spread it further.

The mainstream media has a bias towards corporations more than anything else.

[Paranoid Android]

I'm glad you participated. I don't actually think I've ever personally even given my stamp of approval on Trump. Infact I might even need a citation on that one.

Never implicated you and Trump. You see how I started a new paragraph.

My comment was more to the "fake news" moniker which was no doubt started and continued the Cult of Trump.

[Theodarzna]

Never implicated you and Trump. You see how I started a new paragraph.

My comment was more to the "fake news" moniker which was no doubt started and continued the Cult of Trump.

It is a current term for what is, in essence, a question of media bias that is fairly old. But in the age of the internet it becomes impossible to ignore how things seem to work.

[Paranoid Android]

Most of the actual fake news comes from internet memes and other sources where there's no fact checking and no accountability. Then it occasionally gets picked up by influential people*cough*trump*cough* who then spread it further.

The mainstream media has a bias towards corporations more than anything else.

Agree. The people who swear they are getting Independent media from the internet are being fed likely through algorithms and the "safe place" they choose to go so they can stay in their bubble.

As I stated that definitely they are following a guy who perpetuates fake news on a daily basis. I mean so many videos and audio of Trump saying stuff then he claims 'fake news". Its the dumbest shit I have ever seen, yet the Trumpkins believe.

[s_bushido]

Trump claims the mainstream media is full of fake news.

Fox News is the largest mainstream media outlet.

Trump therefore claims Fox News is fake news.

Tucker Carlson's head explodes.

It is pretty funny that before this, the only people who cared about bias were those pointing out to conservatives the scope and bias of Fox. Everyone else was uncritically gobbling up whatever Fox vomited out.

I imagine it would be pretty awkward for the "FAKE NEWS" crowd if Glenn Beck and his chalkboard were still on the air on the most mainstream of mainstream media outlets.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

It would largely depend on what he claims is "fake news". I'd not say these outlets are saying things that are false, they are usually omitting information, or simply reporting some stories over others and it is hard not to see the over arching narrative these outlets read out as.

If we're talking about Trump the metric seems to be anything that criticizes him in any way. I'm not going to say there hasn't been sloppy biased reporting around him, but as far as what he is willing to label 'fake news' it seems to be anything that doesn't toe the 'Trump is the bestest ever!' line.

But then Trump is a pathological liar, so take it for what you will.