Isn't the complaint about 'fake news' that it's false, not that it's from a non-traditional source?
back
2 comments
No, it's motivated that way to get support, but it's about source and credibility.
Namely, the traditional media market is an advertising platform: it makes its money by selling stories and perspectives in the form of media narrative to its audience. Large corporations and governments contract with the media to determine what those stories are.
You will get stories, and entertaining ones, sure. But it's hardly "true" in the true/false sense. It's like asking if the story Goldilocks is true or false. It isn't either.
Indeed, that news media industry sold stories to the American people to - for example - get them into the Iraq war. This was a combination of very true and also false facts. You could point to any particular story and argue pointlessly about whether the individual story was true or false, like Goldilocks.
Because of widespread distrust of the 'narrative morals' of mainstream media, alternatives have been appearing. There is a desire by information moguls - both public and private industry - to maintain credibility and to make in various forms alternative narratives not feasible.
For public appeal, selective choices are being taken to highlight articles with clearly fabricated facts, with the message being: all alternatives are like this. The first part is true: there exist articles that are complete bullshit both inside and outside the main "credible" media industry. But the second part is not. There's plenty of very well researched, very well documented, very well analysed information that does not get any play in the mainstream media.
I remember recently an audio recording of John Kerry talking to Syrian rebel forces was leaked. I got the NYT take. And then I listened to the leaked audio.
The content was completely different than the NYT tried to make it out to be and in some cases the point Kerry was making was the exact opposite of the NYT had published. In this case, it was quite clear what the political implications would be of honestly reporting on the content, and including the parts that were selectively edited out.
I believe that discrediting all serious news media is part of the same general disinformation campaign as the 'fake news'.
For one, it's a very standard, expected strategy for such campaigns: The only solution to masses fake information is the credibility of some sources; we trust them to sort through the mess and find the truth. If you want to sow confusion, an obvious tactic is to attack the credibility of the trusted sources. In the U.S., the right-wing bloggers, Fox, etc. have openly done this for many years.
For another, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. This "MSM" is not a monolithic group, but very many competing organizations. Any criticism that seems, on its face, poorly thought through.
This comment is so confusing.
It points out that the media industry isn't a monolithic group that is composed of competing organizations, and therefore not subject to scrutiny.
Then it argues that "fake news", which isn't a monolithic group and is composed of competing organizations, is collaborating and subjects it to scrutiny.
I think you're right about the second part. Alternative narratives are going to question - rightfully - the narratives for the current media market. That's the strategic thing to do.
But I think you're wrong about the first part for the same reason you are right about the second. Establishment narratives are going to question - rightfully - the narratives of the alternative media market. That's the strategic thing to do.
It's important to mention that while modern media companies compete, they compete on a very particular basis: to tell the better publicly endorsed narrative. Deviating from that endorsed narrative gets the organization in trouble (AP during the Obama Administration), loses them access, and loses them incredibly important government contracts.
It's also important to not take sides and then try to work backwards to determine who you believe (you'll end up in a circle of cognitive bias, I think well illustrated by what you've posted so far). Looking at the arguments of both the mainstream media and alternative outlets on their own merits is important.
What I suspect you'll find is that both are right. Alternative outlets have their own biases, and ones you might not agree with! But you'll also find that establishment media is deeply biased and incredibly compromised in terms of credibility, everything from whitewashing war crimes, excusing government torture and covering Snowden documents as "bulk collection" rather than "mass surveillance".
That is, if you're apt to make intellectual mistakes like thinking in black and white and ideological totality - you're bound to not only discredit the side that you want to "lose" but credit the other side with more than they are worth!
In this case the mistake would be coming away thinking that the media and advertising market is unbiased and impartial, unpolitical, complete and that it's coverage - especially on topics of national security concern - is credible.
Walking away with that mistake I think would be the most illustrative of how easy it is for people to be swallowed by fallacious reasoning.
No, it's not all relative, all the same, subject to interpretation, or just a matter of political preference. There are lies and truth, propaganda and real information. If we fail to distinguish between them, we will have critical problems and many people will suffer.
As I said, all these theories, claiming it's all relative, are part of the disinformation campaign, wittingly or not.
> establishment media is deeply biased and incredibly compromised
You can make that claim, but it's not true. Everything you listed were uncovered and reported by leading journalism organizations.
Finally, please don't remark on anything but my comment. You have no idea who I am or how I think, and I'm not interested in your ignorant, amateur, cliched, personal advice.
> There are lies and truth, propaganda and real information. If we fail to distinguish between them, we will have critical problems and many people will suffer.
This is precisely my point with US propaganda and "the mainstream media".
How many people have suffered and died as a direct result of that mass manipulation? Hundreds of thousands to MILLIONS, with a region of the world thrown into chaos.
Somehow, you're trying to argue that Facebook rumors are on par with invasion, torture programs, global surveillance and assassinations.
The difference is palpable and it's a disgrace arguments like the one above are trying to confuse the consequences, the credibility, and the stakes.
Ok, let's disentangle two things here:
1) slanted journalism 2) outright lies
We can point to certain cases like Iraq where we would have appreciated more objectivity and/or investigatory appetite from major news sources. This is not a new problem in 2016. Major news sources should be read carefully, especially when the government is, more or less, the sole source of the reporting.
Outright lies, like 'This craigslist ad shows Soros is paying protestors $3500', presented as fact through the same medium a and nearly indistinguishable from more honest reporting, and accepted as such are a relatively new problem, and deserving of attention and derision.
We cannot allow legitimate complaints about the objectivity of media to impugn the entire idea of reporting, and admit tabloid drivel as a legitimate and equal alternative to more honest journalism.
The problem IS disentangling them.
We can point to certain cases like Iraq where we would have appreciated not being fed outright lies that can't even be justified by end-justifies-the-means because the ends were horrible, with incredible amounts of infrastructure destroyed, hundreds of thousands to millions of innocent people killed and a hugely destabilized region now subject to increased regional proxy war - for merely the whims of an administration otherwise trusted to represent the prudent, careful and responsible use of American privilege and power.
Conceived, built and sold on outright lies, there was information throughout the entire process that called the official narrative into question. Yet major news sources specifically and carefully obscured those lines of skepticism and repeatedly magnified the outright lies on the basis of self interest.
I have a number of these we could talk about - everything from Kosovo to Snowden to Bahrain to Syria today - where major media knowingly participates in outright mass fabrication.
And when you tally the lives, the treasure and the resulting ignorance and jingoism of the resulting uninformed citizen the stakes seem oh so much higher than any collection of Facebook rumor - many of which, I suspect, are merely 'slanted' rather than malicious fabrications.
> We cannot allow legitimate complaints about the objectivity of media to impugn the entire idea of reporting, and admit tabloid drivel as a legitimate and equal alternative to more honest journalism.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. But you seem to assess the domestic media we have today as a more honest journalism. This is a completely unwarranted evaluation to my mind. They've lost an incredible amount of credibility, and that's the reason I read their rumor production carefully and suspiciously.
I recommend to people to take a large number of sources into account to try to understand what's going on in the world. I make recommendations. Those lists always include foreign media, always include military analysis, always include Thinktanks and always include history books.
Sometimes they include mainstream media. When they do, it's with caveats to explain that what you get from that media is a series of stories and impressions other people have paid those companies to get you to watch.
In total:
1) Yes, we need to distinguish between slanted journalism and outright lies.
2) No, major media outlets can't be equivocated with 'slanted journalism' with independent media and rumors equivocated with 'outright lies.'
The background behind all of this is that there's a crisis in faith in the US government and media organizations that promote outright lies to galvinize support for and obscure the issues around controversial policies. There is a 'national security danger' to a widespread collapse of credibility and at this moment a range of options for regaining that esteem and control is underway in Washington: some of these are truly more Orwellian than others, but I haven't yet found anyone talking about encouraging more honest and direct communication on frank terms - which is actually what is needed to heal the relationship between a voting base that (rightly) feels manipulated and emotionally abused.
>> The content [of John Kerry's speach] was completely different than the NYT tried to make it out to be
I saw this a few days late.
I'd love some references -- since we were talking about propaganda here...
if that is true, a transcript along with quotes from the NY Times article ought to have passed by my Facebook in stream... unless FB is another conspiracy? :-)
(I'm willing to believe that e.g. US politicians pamper to all the conspiracy theories floating round the Middle East. It is sensitive to write that a majority of the population anywhere do something we despise in the West, like believing in stupid conspiracy theories.)
it makes its money by selling stories and perspectives in the form of media narrative to its audience.
That's less and less the case as their revenues are collapsing. Facebook being the gatekeeper is one of their ways of not being defeated by citizen journalism.
More and more, large corporate and monied interests are funding these media outlets to promote their agenda.
It is. There are currently two popular narratives about the media going on in the US right now
1) The inherently liberal mainstream media is conspiring against Trump and the silent majority
2) Fake news sites have a lot of traction in social media circles and are influencing decision making
A lot of the sources cited by people in camp 1 are the sources being complained about in camp 2.
I may be missing the bigger picture here, but it seems like you could simultaneously believe these two things. Even if you're a conservative who believes most mainstream media is biased towards liberals, isn't there a clear difference between say, Breitbart, which is a right-wing news/opinion site, and the recent flood of WordPress blogs set up by teenagers in Bulgaria that pump out outright fabricated clickbait news for money? Why would right-wing politics require you to defend the latter?
Why would it require you to defend the former? Because they have a brand name doesn't make them any more truthful, and they have a long track record of hate and lies.
...and they have a long track record of hate and lies.
So does every left-leaning outlet.
See what I did there?
> So does every left-leaning outlet / See what I did there?
I see you typed some letters in a comment box. But doing that that doesn't create truth or fact. What separates real knowledge from a string of letters?