who will be the final arbiter of news....FAKE OR OTHERWISE?

[justoffal]

We have an information crisis taking place these days. I suppose it was inevitable given the arrival of the information superhighway.....but this is not just any crisis. When Orson wells pulled the martian invasion prank/broadcast back in the 1930's people were running in the streets in a state of total panic. So yes...information is powerful and now more than even it has become difficult to locate a reliable source. Those sources that are reliable are suffering the same suspicious scrutiny as the liars because no news comes with a USDA seal of approval like some side of beet that's been inspected and maybe that's a good thing. The overall effect however is that of being totally uninformed....we have reached a point where we can't believe anything we hear and that my friends is a very serious problem.

Hillary Clinton blames FAKE NEWS for her demise....hmmm......I suppose that could be true to some extent but it is certainly disingenuous of her not to look in the mirror also.....however I digress.

What's next? A new government agency " Ministry of Information " to vet the news? BAD IDEA.....the government already messes with the veracity index of the stuff they put out...they certainly cannot be trusted to guard the news...no matter who is in the White House.

So now we are forced to digest information bit by painful bit....and then run back to vet everything as best we are able. Ridiculous! In the mean time catastrophic news that could affect our well being could be true or it could be false. All of use are inundated with " Sky is falling financial catastrophe impending "e-mails and yet we still manage to go to the grocery store and pay bills. The collapse has not happened yet...not that it won't ...but still it would appear that much of what we are getting is fake news.

So how folks? How will we know? Who can we trust? How will we be able to determine if it fake or not?

JO

 

[Mac1958]

So how folks? How will we know? Who can we trust? How will we be able to determine if it fake or not?

Fair questions, and I don't know that anyone has the answer yet.

We've seen the "fact checking" cottage industry over the few years, but no honest person can say that any given "fact checker" is, themselves, objective.

Now we have sites like Facebook saying that they'll decide what is "fake news" and keep it off the site. Well, we all know that Facebook has a political bias.

So "fact checkers" and "fake news" arbiters aren't the answer. We'll see.
.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

We have an information crisis taking place these days. I suppose it was inevitable given the arrival of the information superhighway.....but this is not just any crisis. When Orson wells pulled the martian invasion prank/broadcast back in the 1930's people were running in the streets in a state of total panic. So yes...information is powerful and now more than even it has become difficult to locate a reliable source. Those sources that are reliable are suffering the same suspicious scrutiny as the liars because no news comes with a USDA seal of approval like some side of beet that's been inspected and maybe that's a good thing. The overall effect however is that of being totally uninformed....we have reached a point where we can't believe anything we hear and that my friends is a very serious problem.

Hillary Clinton blames FAKE NEWS for her demise....hmmm......I suppose that could be true to some extent but it is certainly disingenuous of her not to look in the mirror also.....however I digress.

What's next? A new government agency " Ministry of Information " to vet the news? BAD IDEA.....the government already messes with the veracity index of the stuff they put out...they certainly cannot be trusted to guard the news...no matter who is in the White House.

So now we are forced to digest information bit by painful bit....and then run back to vet everything as best we are able. Ridiculous! In the mean time catastrophic news that could affect our well being could be true or it could be false. All of use are inundated with " Sky is falling financial catastrophe impending "e-mails and yet we still manage to go to the grocery store and pay bills. The collapse has not happened yet...not that it won't ...but still it would appear that much of what we are getting is fake news.

So how folks? How will we know? Who can we trust? How will we be able to determine if it fake or not?

JO

Since Richard Nixon was taken down by the liberal lickspittle lapdog media, those on the left have used every means to get republicans to be demonized as the bad guys, while those same lickspittles showed democraps as angels. Well the new media has come out, real media, not FAUX news that the left presents(Propaganda) and this is one reason why HRC(the vagina candidate) didn't win. When TRUTH was presented about the failed secretary of state, this was her down fall, no matter how much lying came from the left.

 

[OldLady]

We have an information crisis taking place these days. I suppose it was inevitable given the arrival of the information superhighway.....but this is not just any crisis. When Orson wells pulled the martian invasion prank/broadcast back in the 1930's people were running in the streets in a state of total panic. So yes...information is powerful and now more than even it has become difficult to locate a reliable source. Those sources that are reliable are suffering the same suspicious scrutiny as the liars because no news comes with a USDA seal of approval like some side of beet that's been inspected and maybe that's a good thing. The overall effect however is that of being totally uninformed....we have reached a point where we can't believe anything we hear and that my friends is a very serious problem.

Hillary Clinton blames FAKE NEWS for her demise....hmmm......I suppose that could be true to some extent but it is certainly disingenuous of her not to look in the mirror also.....however I digress.

What's next? A new government agency " Ministry of Information " to vet the news? BAD IDEA.....the government already messes with the veracity index of the stuff they put out...they certainly cannot be trusted to guard the news...no matter who is in the White House.

So now we are forced to digest information bit by painful bit....and then run back to vet everything as best we are able. Ridiculous! In the mean time catastrophic news that could affect our well being could be true or it could be false. All of use are inundated with " Sky is falling financial catastrophe impending "e-mails and yet we still manage to go to the grocery store and pay bills. The collapse has not happened yet...not that it won't ...but still it would appear that much of what we are getting is fake news.

So how folks? How will we know? Who can we trust? How will we be able to determine if it fake or not?

JO

The government doesn't have to do it, any more than they have to vet the MSM. There are libel/slander laws and journalistic ethics that keep MSM based on things that actually happened. This would not be a problem if the purveyors of fake news were held accountable the way the MSM is.
There are already excellent fact-checker sites -- Politifact, Snopes, etc. that explain where they get their information and how they prove/disprove a claim. Google has started to "tag" fake news with a reference to what makes them think it's fake. I guess, just like the National Enquirer and some of the other grocery store rags, the right to publish bullshit is sacrosanct, but if we have to live with it, we can at least know it's fake, right?
What is troubling lately about the news being made up on the internet is that it has been almost entirely focused on slamming the Democrats and upholding Trump and the Alt-Right. That is taking a serious propaganda-like turn that worries me, as opposed to "105 year old woman gives birth to triplets." If we can find a way to hold the news sites on the internet accountable using civil laws, there is no reason for the government to get involved. They fudge up everything.

 

[EverCurious]

Operation Mockingbird. "After William Colby left the Agency on January 28th, 1976, and was succeeded by George H.W. Bush, the CIA announced a new policy: “Effective immediately, the CIA will not enter into any paid or contractual relationship with any full‑time or part‑time news correspondent accredited by any U.S. news service, newspaper, periodical, radio or television network or station.” However, more than half of the relationships the CIA had with U.S. journalists continued. The text of the announcement noted that the CIA would continue to “welcome” the voluntary, unpaid cooperation of journalists. Thus, while Operation Mockingbird came to an end, many relationships between the CIA and journalists were allowed to remain intact."

See also HR5181 (114th Congress 2016)

We don't have a choice, the government is attempting to take over yet again. We'll be fed whatever they decide to feed us.