You'd find really salacious headlines: "Hillary Clinton Murder Victim Speaks" and the actual story would be about her fundraising.
They were arbitraging the cost of buying a FB ad (to drive traffic and start the viral loop) against how many ads they could run on the site.
If it uses fully egalitarian participation model, a determined, vocal and ruthless clique would be able to enforce their view with relative ease, by just a) investing more time than others, thus gaining standing in the project and clout to use against opponents and b) just by shouting down the opponents and scaring them off - most people wouldn't care enough to resist an organized clique on some semi-obscure project.
If it uses some kind of "expert panel", it can be attacked by activists, demanding to eject people who hold controversial opinions, or make their life hard until they leave. It can also be selected to be biased from the get go - many academic disciplines and professions have a lot of biases. If in some fields majority of experts hold some opinions, they would also tend to select for agreement with them, thus enforcing the groupthink and completely denying representation to alternative opinion.
Any centralized system would be vulnerable to this. Any single "source of truth" can be subverted.
Months since when, exactly? Most popular fact checkers existed long before the "fake news" meme brought them to newfound attention.
Since they gained widespread popularity as a watchdogs and arbiters over the "regular media". This was long before last US elections which has triggered the "fake news" panic (well, triggered may be not the best word here, "involved" may be better, but I don't want to digress too much).
Well, I realize it's hard for me to give specific times here, mostly because I don't remember neither when exactly I started reading fact-checking sites, nor when exactly I started noticing propaganda showing up. Maybe some of them held for a year or two, and maybe some of them worked in relative obscurity for a while and managed to keep a clean record before they gained popularity that allowed prominent politicians to cite them as a proof, and thus became a target for subversion. And maybe there are others who I didn't know about and who have much better record (bad luck for me).
The underlying point is that what I observed is that once some outlet becomes widely known as arbiter of truth in any political context, and it does not have very strong independent filtering mechanism, propaganda shows up very soon. If it does have one, propaganda shows up too (e.g. there are tons of biased articles on Wikipedia and there is a lot of shoddy and biased research in scientific journals) but a bit slower.
I've seen criticism of Snopes, for example - but apart from one or two examples of cock-ups that they corrected, I've never seen any evidence of subversion - so which sites are you talking about?
But ok, here's an experiment. Not snopes (I have snopes examples too, just requires a bit more time to find).
Bernie says black youth real unemployment is 51% - Politifact says it's mostly true[1], maybe even over that. Maybe the terminology was a bit off, but the point of high black youth unemployment is correct. Not completely true, but mostly is.
Trump says black youth unemployment is 59% - so Politifact says it's close to true, but probably closer to 51%, right? Trump is close to truth, but maybe exaggerated a little, as is his habit? Nope, Politifact says it's mostly false[2] and the real figure is a third of that. Note how in the first case PF is completely OK with extending unemployment definition but turns rigorously pedantic in the second case and insists unemployment is nothing but the figure published by BLS, and Trump's point - which is exactly the same point as Sanders had! - is total bullshit. How do you like them apples?
[1] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/...
[2] http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/do...
Want more? Here's more.
Ron Paul says there was no income taxes until 1913? Half true[3], there were short-lived efforts to introduce the tax (as if that was the point). Jim Webb says the same? Fact check is now "mostly true"[4]. This one was corrected postfactum, because somebody noticed and made fuss out of it.
There are many more examples of PF doing this - spinning the facts depending on who said it. Snopes is doing the same, and more - like taking a factually true statement, finding some retelling that adds a slight exaggeration or twist to it and slapping "mostly false" on it and dedicating most of the article to refuting that slight twist and ignoring the original fact. Because while the initial fact is true, this particular exaggeration or twist is not, so the compound statement is "false" and now the original statement can be reported as "found to be mostly false by factcheckers". Primitive manipulation, but it works.
[3] http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/jan/31/ron-p...
[4] http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2015/aug/24/ji...
[0] http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-lau...
> Key line: "Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy and sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China." Romney's wording of this statement in a prior speech was even stronger: "I saw a story today, that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China."
> The claim originated in a Bloomberg News story, which the conservative Washington Examiner construed to mean that Jeep was struggling and considering moving some or all manufacturing from the U.S. to China as a result. When the Romney campaign was questioned about this statement, aides conspicuously stuck to it.
> In an important way it is the opposite of the truth. Between the 2009 bankruptcy filing and 2012, Jeep had robust growth. Its manufacturing in the U.S. was expanding and it was hiring workers. Its overseas sales also picked up, and it was considering re-opening shuttered factories in China. These facilities were not going to replace domestic manufacturing -- they were for making certain models of compact SUVs specifically tailored to the Chinese market, which are impractical to import from the U.S. So the statement, "Jeep is doing poorly and so will move manufacturing to China," is false, while "Jeep is doing well and may resume manufacturing in China," is true. (Furthermore, the deal that left Fiat with a controlling share of Chrysler emerged from talks begun before Obama was president.)
If, for example, some segment of the population starts believing that a presidential candidate is running a child prostitution ring from a DC pizza joint, it isn't "bias" when the media does not afford it equal weight to, say, a joint FBI/NSA/CIA/DJ statement regarding a crime.
- Trump backs away from demand for border wall money
- The State Department is apparently spending money to officially promote Mar-a-Lago
- Trump’s border-wall fantasy is crumbling
- Trump’s White House Family Affair Looks A Lot Like The Most Corrupt Nations In The World
- CNN’s Tapper: US 'shamelessly' advertising Trump's businesses
- Poll: 73% Back Independent Probe of Russian Election Interference
- Anderson Cooper Warns: Don’t Be ‘Desensitized’ By Trump’s ‘Fake Facts’
- Mar-A-Lago removed from State Department blog after ethics outcry
Only one of those items was real news:
- Entire U.S. Senate to go to White House for North Korea briefing
Any real solution needs to make sure that it doesn't devolve to this mess.
On each point:
- Trump was demanding "border wall money" and it was threatening to derail the debate over a budget CR. If he had not caved, the US government would have shut down on Friday. How is that not real news?
- If the State Department is spending money to promote MAr-a-Lago, how is that not corruption? How is corruption not news?
- same as (1). Also, check the URL: wp.com/opinion
- Giving powerful jobs to family members is the definition of nepotism. This is certainly commentary
- same as (2)
- Politicians make decisions based on poll data. Should the public not be told of poll results?
- Yeah, it's an opinion. It's not pretending to be news.
- Same as 2
I don't actually get the complaint. Do you consider everything negative about the President "biased"? What if he dies? Would reporting that be considered "biased", because it could have an impact on his chances of reelection?
I expect, in other words, the Wall Street Journal curated headline list to look different from the New York Times headline list, and likewise for the New York Times headline list to look different from the Economist headline list, and that to look very different from my local city paper headline list.
To me, "unbiased news" therefore does not in practice exist (and most complaints about bias are merely complaining that something exhibits "the wrong" bias.) The only true way of coming close to "unbiased news" is probably via meta-analysis. Humans probably cannot handle this for all articles -- a single person would be overloaded with information.
Realistically, the best you can do is limit yourself to a few select news sources that you find the most trustworthy, or that you care about personally (eg more specialized news sources). There is bias even in that, but as long as your curation isn't in one silo, you are probably more informed than most.
(Maybe machine learning could be used to generate meta-analysis of news items with as little "bias" as possible, however even here there's a strong possibility that the bias of the "trainer" would end up dominating...)
"Bias", such as it is, is entirely in what stories are presented, and the slant given to them.
As another example consider this NYTimes article[0] "Free Market for Education? Economists Generally Don’t Buy It", which refers to a study where 36% Economists surveyed think vouchers would be good, 19% think they would be bad, and 45% are undecided. By lumping together "undecided" and "bad" the article can correctly make the claim "generally don't buy it", but another way of interpreting the data would be "about twice as many economists are pro-voucher as anti-voucher". But that's a headline you'd expect on Fox rather than NYTimes. But both are true!
[0] https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/upshot/free-market-for...
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
Cook2013: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/0240...
[0] http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-cl... [1] http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048...
The next valid study in (2014) is 87%.
It then throws in a study that includes people who aren't scientists with lower numbers.
Then you have Cook.
Then you have another study with 90% consensus.
Then another two more that includes non-scientists.
Then one with a different question.
Then one with a 100% consensus based on published scientists.
Then another one that includes non-scientists.
The range is from 87% to 100% consensus with 2 of 5 at 97% or greater.
I understand you are trying to argue I'm wrong but the moment you start referencing personal blogs and studies that include non-scientists, you aren't really debunking what I said to any great degree and none of the years overlap sufficiently so its really a charge of a trend of belief over time combined with different methodologies.
100% -> 90% -> 97% -> 87% -> 93.7%
That makes perfect sense given science is always going to uncover new evidence that there was some variation over a 15 year period.
Now imagine a publication that only presents the results of the other 3%.
Also, it is somewhat ironic that you chose doctors as an example, as this is the area where it is common practice to get a second opinion when presented with a material conclusion.
A second opinion doesn't require a 20 person sample size to have a a reasonable chance of landing on someone who shares your views.
There is a reason it is to get a second opinion, not 20 opinions.
The basic problem here isn't the irony you perceive but the fact literally _nothing_ in modern medicine functions if you require 97% consensus.
So your argument is scientists are equivalent to journalists who solely exist to manipulate you?
You are free to stop using a computer, taking medication, and driving a car in that case.
Erm, what? How is that my argument?
> journalists who solely exist to manipulate you?
I don't say they exist "solely" to manipulate - I say they consider manipulating part of allowable and normal behavior, and this should be corrected. Until this is done, the level of trust we allow to a journalist should be much lower than one allowed to a doctor. Because the doctor is supposed to be on your side, and the journalist is not.
> You are free to stop using a computer, taking medication, and driving a car in that case.
You seem to be answering something completely unrelated to my comment in any way. Please don't do that.
We've already solved this problem: Professionalism. Quality professional culture is preferable to pointless nitpicking anyday.
> We've already solved this problem: Professionalism
You say it as if it explains something. But it doesn't - what's "professionalism"? There are a lot of people that are literally paid millions to deliver news, and if you're interested in news (and not, for example, in making fun of the person you disagree with or reinforcing your preconceived notions about people disagreeing with you being evil and stupid) they are doing a spectacularly crappy job. Are they "professionals"? And if not, where does one gets them? Are people that fake scientific data "professionals" (happens all the time)? Are people that make grand political claims based on shoddy research or no research at all "professionals" or not? Where does one get that "quality culture" which would eliminate those common occurrences?
You seem to have an agenda to try and prove that journalism as a vocation is fundamentally broken, and this leads you to make hyperbolic statements and clutch at strawmen.
Take a look a little deeper and you'll see that journalism is a profession with ethical standards and is actually pretty robust and, perhaps, even honourable - it's the funding and business models that are the issue, but the actual practice is quite sound.
I am not observing any evidence of such processes existing. In fact, I am observing exactly the opposite - people freely moving between being political operatives and newspeople, political parties coordinating propaganda campaigns with friendly news anchors, known news personalities being openly hyper-partisan and not being challenged on it in their organization, independent thinking people being forced out (e.g. Sharyl Attkisson) and so on. I don't see any self-criticism going on.
> You seem to have an agenda to try and prove that journalism as a vocation is fundamentally broken
Journalism as a vocation is not broken. Journalists as a practitioners of the profession as it is practiced now are. Yes, there exist professional journalists, who do what they are supposed to do, honestly. Many of them. But now they are going against the stream, and working against the odds. And one has to be blind to not see that situation is getting worse, the trust in media reporting is dropping and the quality of news content coming from major outlets is terrible. You can call it "broken" or you can call it "temporary difficulties which do not influence averages which are still excellent" but its in plain view for everybody to see. And it's not my agenda - there are a lot of people around recognizing the same. Otherwise we wouldn't need special startups to do what journalists were supposed to do.
> you'll see that journalism is a profession with ethical standards
Ideally, yes. However, I don't see these standards being really enforced or even seriously heeded to. Very rarely I see any analysis done on bad reporting, and only in a case the organization was externally caught and called out on it. Maybe you're right and I am focusing on the visible outliers, but it seems to be that there are too many "outliers"...
No facts there?
Top story on WashPo - https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/white-house-confide...
Fact free?
To me both organizations embody a mediocre beltway mentality that isn't beholden to any one party or caucus. It's a thought process that props up lobbyists and thinktank lickspittles as overnight "experts" on whatever country we're thinking about bombing next. They're the kind of rags that will call Kissinger "a statesman" in his obituary. They present heated debated nestled snugly within the Overton Window to mask a neoliberal consensus. Not a fan at all.
I think the real promise lies in Wikitribune potentially going toe-to-toe with "real news" like CNN or the Washington Post. These outlets also don't always get the facts straight and can't be said to have a diehard following. If a superior option presents itself, readers will follow.