Readers who seek a factual account of an event.
Why is this so subjective, and why are people so riled up in these threads? News should be objectively true. If it isn't, it should be clearly flagged as opinion, or struck entirely as fiction, i.e. fake.
But there's no real boundary between that and the opinion.
e.g. opinion: http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/09/26/tucker-carlson-battles...
news: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/09/27/mortar-rounds-land-a...
(both items selected from the Fox front page above the fold at time of writing)
The simple act of deciding what is and is not "newsworthy" is not objective and cannot be made objective. So truly objective news is impossible.
This idea was taken to the extreme with outlets like Fox News, and I think we are witnessing a counter-move in the opposite direction as a result. Once the pendulum swings enough in that direction, and 'legitimate' news start being censored, the GP comment will probably feel a lot more relevant.
There is zero reason for the issue to be political. Either it's falsified on purpose and with an intent to deceive the consumer (a'la "Fake Gucci Purse") or it's not.
They said the city of Birmingham in the UK was a place "where non-Muslims just simply don't go".
Here's a sampling of 50 pretty obvious lies:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/feb/26/50-...
An aside, I've literally read a story about a guy who writes "fake news" just for cash, and one of the headlines he made up for clicks, is the exact same as something that was actually said on Fox news:
"Says Colorado food stamp recipients can use ATMs to get cash to buy marijuana."
Here's an NPR story about the fake news creator, when he mentions this:
http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503...
Ironically the last bit of Fox News I actually watched was a "fact-check" segment.
In it, the first lady's claim that slaves had built the white house was "fact-checked". By which they meant they didn't actually contradict the fact (because it was true) but minimized it as much as possible, including throwing in the unsupported lie that the slaves were "well treated".
We actually have documentary evidence written by the first lady that was in the white house at the time, that the slaves she saw building the white house were in fact poorly treated.
But even if they were, why would you bring this up? Well-treated slaves are still slaves.
It's not what they say, it's what they leave out. Those soothing dulcet tones are half way to hypnosis.
I give you little credit for recognize Fox News propaganda because it's entry level manipulation. Most people who visit Huffpo know what it is. Organizations like the New York Times, NPR, The Economist and National Review have refined it to an art form.
I take the latter group more seriously because large numbers of people buy into their lines but Fox and Huffpo are what WWF is to armed conflict.
The New York Times is a Communist organization. That is not hyperbole, it is the truth. It's not well hidden if you go and look. They have always supported Communism. Likewise The Economist has always supported Fascist and other authoritarian dictatorships. Inside every friendly, well mannered, articulate moderate is an extremist trying to claw out.
Us Westerners support all manner of extraordinary adventures because for ourselves at the center of world power this is a game that doesn't involve high stakes. The voters are complicit of course, we have prospered greatly over the centuries and like our comfortable lives that don't involve thorny questions.
I don't feel bad about this, it's the same as every other civilization in history. Perhaps we ought to restrain ourselves more from saving the world if only to halt our plumbing the depths of grandiose neurosis. I think I've offended everybody now so I'll shut up.
Was I unclear?
Lies = fiction
Fiction = fake
Selective/subjectively editorialized truth = biased/misleading, but not fake
Objective unbiased truth = not fake
I'm not debating the ratios of any such types of news on any network.
They don't often do that.
Fox News is deeply biased, that isn't in dispute. Only if they or another news outlet lie can the label "fake news" rightfully be applied. Fake = fictional. Anything else is a version of the truth. Biased <> fake.
Haven't heard a good one like that in a while. Here is Bill O' Reilly on Amsterdam, with factual counterpoints: https://youtu.be/sTPsFIsxM3w
When any news outlet reports news objectively and factually, that reporting is not fake. When they report it with subjective editorialization, it's BIASED, but if it's TECHNICALLY TRUE, it's NOT FAKE.
If it's a lie, it's fake. If it's fictional, it's fake. Your quote of my message, for example, was fictional.
Is Fox News "fake news"? More often, it's simply blatant BIAS, but yes, certain hosts are well-known purveyors or FAKE news.
The fact that it's so popular is a sign people using it are not used to articulating their objections concretely, which is a red flag.
"Factual"? You do realize that "events" have many different sides to the story right?
> Why is this so subjective
Because life is subjective and life is complicated.
How about this? There is a lgbt protest in saudi arabia. The saudi arabian news says "Police stopped anti-islamic protest that offends muslims". Should that "factual" story be the only one allowed?
It is factual right?
> If it isn't, it should be clearly flagged as opinion, or struck entirely as fiction, i.e. fake.
By whose standard? Who decides it's fake? You?
So if the western media said "Saudi authorities attack peaceful lgbt protesters", then the saudis are right to block it as "fake" news right? Because it isn't "factual" right?
If the story is fake, then expose the fakeness rather than banning it. It's better that people openly expose fake news.
adjective: constituting or presenting a problem
Or are the "word-checkers" in on the big conspiracy too?
Ever heard of the Polish Pink Files? How about the Stasi? In every instance where this type of policing happens, it leads to major disaster.
The snide comment was cute but totally unwarranted, as conspiracies do occur.
To claim otherwise is not just silly, but actively working at cross purposes to the stated intent.
Thankfully not one of the comments you're responding to is claiming otherwise.
"This is little more than an attempt to sanitize information so that all that remains is the pre-approved 'least problematic' truth (fact-checked, of course)."
"These books were written as a warning of this type of censorship" (emphasis in the original)
> "This is little more than an attempt to sanitize information so that all that remains is the pre-approved 'least problematic' truth (fact-checked, of course)."
is equivalent to:
> politicians being fact-checked by independent organizations.
Which is fascinating.
Though it's probably just a secondary effect of defending the indefensible, which makes context, like facts, inconvenient.
The post was clearly attacking "fact-checking" as a partisan activity. Snopes and Politifact type sites are under attack by the right wing, because fake news is a right-wing problem.
There's no point parsing into exactly how "fake" each bit of news is. Nothing made up by Macedonian teenagers is any crazier than stuff Trump has repeated on camera. As soon as you bring objectivity into things then it's going to make Trump look bad.
They've elected a brazen liar, who lies about stupid stuff he doesn't even need to lie about, and instead of owning that, they're now telling us that 1984 is a warning about people not accepting lies from their government.
Even in the twisted world we now live in, that is shocking.
You said, 1984 was "written as a warning of this type of censorship".
If you didn't mean to defend the grand-parent post, then you're the one that's expressing yourself poorly.
What's Orwellian here is the number of people who believe things contrary to fact because politicians repeatedly and brazenly lie on those topics and when fact checked, they attack the whole edifice of Science, the free press, the CBO, what people have seen with their own eyes etc.
Here is a simple comparison. Jews are problematic to nazis. Nazis are problematic to jews.
Feminism is problematic to chauvanists. Chauvanists are problematic to feminist.
You see the problem with problematic right?
'Problematic'. There's that word, again. The news need not even be 'fake' anymore. Simply 'problematic' will do.
Here's Mark Zuckerberg not long ago:
> While the amount of problematic content we've found so far remains relatively small, any attempted interference is a serious issue.
Problematic to whom, one wonders? The loser? Those who feel most aggrieved? This is little more than an attempt to sanitize information so that all that remains is the pre-approved 'least problematic' truth (fact-checked, of course).
Hillary Clinton, with much irony and little self-awareness, summed up the intent behind this move in her latest book:
> “Attempting to define reality is a core feature of authoritarianism....This is what the Soviets did when they erased political dissidents from historical photos. This is what happens in George Orwell’s classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, when a torturer holds up four fingers and delivers electric shocks until his prisoner sees five fingers as ordered. “The goal is to make you question logic and reason and to sow mistrust towards exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, ourselves”.
So the message is clear: Trust us, you dolts. We know best.