Preventing the spread of Fake News and Misinformation

[frigidweirdo]

Yep, you can't make a horse drink but you can lead him to water. Educating the public is a first step. Clearly implanting in the mind of the public that you don't get the real news by listening to news commentators. Second, news outlets need to be persuaded to stop labeling their opinion as fact. I wrote about this in my post follows #117.

No offense but we've been educating people for a century now. We've got the internet, so much information at the click of a button. Do people become more logical? NO.

The reality is that the more you look at this, the more China looks right.

They're essentially filling people's brains only with the stuff they want it to be filled with. Perhaps what they're filling their brains with is wrong, but the reality is that for a society to exist in civilized peace, you need heavy indoctrination. You need to steer people away from conflict, like the north/south divide, or away from racial issues.

You tell people what to think, because most people simply don't have the desire to figure out things for themselves.

But then when you do indoctrination, you need to make sure it's the right indoctrination. Which is the big problem.

 

[Flopper]

No offense but we've been educating people for a century now. We've got the internet, so much information at the click of a button. Do people become more logical? NO.

The reality is that the more you look at this, the more China looks right.

They're essentially filling people's brains only with the stuff they want it to be filled with. Perhaps what they're filling their brains with is wrong, but the reality is that for a society to exist in civilized peace, you need heavy indoctrination. You need to steer people away from conflict, like the north/south divide, or away from racial issues.

You tell people what to think, because most people simply don't have the desire to figure out things for themselves.

But then when you do indoctrination, you need to make sure it's the right indoctrination. Which is the big problem.

No offense but we've been educating people for a century now. We've got the internet, so much information at the click of a button. Do people become more logical? NO.

The reality is that the more you look at this, the more China looks right.

They're essentially filling people's brains only with the stuff they want it to be filled with. Perhaps what they're filling their brains with is wrong, but the reality is that for a society to exist in civilized peace, you need heavy indoctrination. You need to steer people away from conflict, like the north/south divide, or away from racial issues.

You tell people what to think, because most people simply don't have the desire to figure out things for themselves.

But then when you do indoctrination, you need to make sure it's the right indoctrination. Which is the big problem.

Indoctrination I would like seem is pretty simple. News commentary is not news. It is an opinion about news. We also need to put pressure on the news media to separate commentary from news and label it as such. We need Pulitzer prizes or something similar for the most trustworthy, accurate and unbiased news programs and websites and certification of news media organizations by recognized leading organizations in journalism.

There is a lot of truth in what you're saying about China. The goverment tells people what they want them to know but it's also what helps them lead more productive and happy lives. Before I retired, I visited China on business several times spending months in Beijing, Shanghai, and Chongqing. I met and became friends with serval people despite my poor understanding of the language and even spend time with their families. Talk about culture shock. In a way it was like visiting another planet. What impressed me was how attentive they were to their family needs, how little interest they had in the national goverment, and how optimist they were in regard to their financial well being, the future of the nation, and the world in general. They seem to think, we were winning the fight against global warming, probably because that is what they heard in the news. They seem to have little knowledge of the rest of world despite a good education. Unlike most people in the US they really trusted the federal government but hade little interest in it but they were very interested in local government. None of these people were members of the Communist Party. Most people aren't in China. In general, they seemed happier, more content, and more optimist than most Americans.

 

[Colin norris]

We've all seen it on USMB and elsewhere, fake news and misinformation on just about every major topic of public interest, global warming, elections, covid-19, foreign policy, domestic policy, legislation, crime, etc..... When we see posts that are filled with false information that is contrary to, trusted news services, science, trusted leaders, and often just plain common sense, we feel obliged to prove the poster is wrong. Generally speaking this not the best way to stop the spread of misinformation. It actually increases it. It is exactly what the poster wants, an invitation to provide more misinformation in support of his augment. When we play this game with the poster we become part of the problem, not the solution.

Fake news is bad for democracy — and in a pandemic, it may be a matter of life or death.

The main problem is repigs Who refuse to accept the truth because it doesn't suit their agenda. Hence, it's fake news. But ultimately they silently admit to themselves it wasn't.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Indoctrination I would like seem is pretty simple. News commentary is not news. It is an opinion about news. We also need to put pressure on the news media to separate commentary from news and label it as such. We need Pulitzer prizes or something similar for the most trustworthy, accurate and unbiased news programs and certification of news media organizations by recognized leading organizations in journalism.

There is a lot of truth in what you're saying about China. The goverment tells people what they want them to know but it's also what helps them lead more productive and happy lives. Before I retired, I visited China on business serval times spending months in Beijing, Shanghai, and Chongqing. I met and became friends with serval people despite my poor understanding of the language and even spend time with their families. Talk about culture shock. In a way it was like visiting another planet. What impressed me was how attentive they were to their family needs, how little interest they had in the national goverment, and how optimist they were in regard to their financial well being, the future of the nation, and the world in general. They seem think, we were winning the fight against global warming, probably because that is what they heard in the news. They seem to have little knowledge of the rest of world despite a good education. Unlike most people in the US they really trusted the federal government but hade little interest in it but they were very interested in local government. None of these people were members of the Communist Party. Most people aren't in China. In general, they seemed happier, more content, and more optimist than most Americans.

The problem with facts is that don't represent everything. Politics is not just facts based. Emotion comes into it all too.

Take immigration. You can present the fact. "Oh, these immigrants bring in this much money, oh they cost this much money" but how to you deal with some dude who sees immigrants coming into his community and doesn't feel at home any more? How do you quantify that?

News is more than just facts, opinion is news too. How do you present that in a fair manner? Or even in a biased manner?

Well, Chinese people are happy, in the most part, because the future is better than the past. Right now. Give it a few years and that might change. But in the US kids are looking at a worse future than their parents, because the powers that be are messing it all up.

 

[TemplarKormac]

We've all seen it on USMB and elsewhere, fake news and misinformation on just about every major topic of public interest, global warming, elections, covid-19, foreign policy, domestic policy, legislation, crime, etc..... When we see posts that are filled with false information that is contrary to, trusted news services, science, trusted leaders, and often just plain common sense, we feel obliged to prove the poster is wrong. Generally speaking this not the best way to stop the spread of misinformation. It actually increases it. It is exactly what the poster wants, an invitation to provide more misinformation in support of his augment. When we play this game with the poster we become part of the problem, not the solution.

Fake news is bad for democracy — and in a pandemic, it may be a matter of life or death.

You will never prevent fake news. It will always exist, and there will always be people on either side clueless enough to fall for it.

 

[Flopper]

The problem with facts is that don't represent everything. Politics is not just facts based. Emotion comes into it all too.

Take immigration. You can present the fact. "Oh, these immigrants bring in this much money, oh they cost this much money" but how to you deal with some dude who sees immigrants coming into his community and doesn't feel at home any more? How do you quantify that?

News is more than just facts, opinion is news too. How do you present that in a fair manner? Or even in a biased manner?

Well, Chinese people are happy, in the most part, because the future is better than the past. Right now. Give it a few years and that might change. But in the US kids are looking at a worse future than their parents, because the powers that be are messing it all up.

The place for facts; that is facts in regard to current events belong in the news. Discussion and opinion belong in news commentary. The News might be the place for the facts about immigrant but the news commentary is the place for discussion about pros and cons of the immigrants and solutions. The reason separating news and commentary and labeling it as such is so important is to maintain objectivity. If someone tunes to a newscast and starts hearing slants and comments that don't agree with their beliefs they label that organizational as biased, purveyor of false information, and an organization they can't trust. As this spread through the industry, faith in the news media is destroyed and that is really dangerous for democracy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The place for facts; that is facts in regard to current events belong in the news. Discussion and opinion belong in news commentary. The News might be the place for the facts about immigrant but the news commentary is the place for discussion about pros and cons of the immigrants and solutions. The reason separating news and commentary and labeling it as such is so important is to maintain objectivity. If someone tunes to a newscast and starts hearing slants and comments that don't agree with their beliefs they label that organizational as biased, purveyor of false information, and an organization they can't trust. As this spread through the industry, faith in the news media is destroyed and that is really dangerous for democracy.

The problem is that people are being controlled by the "news commentary".

The facts are facts. What is manipulating people isn't the facts, it's the "news commentary", it's exactly the part we're talking about here.

How do you control that "news commentary"?

Or do you just let it stay wild?

 

[j-mac]

There is news and there is news commentary. There is nothing wrong with news services being on one side or the other but there's a lot wrong with mixing opinion with news. In a school of journalism one of the first things you learn about news reporting is that your opinion or that or your employer is irrelevant in reporting the news. I can remember over a half century ago, when I worked part time for a small town newspaper and I was given the job of covering the local country fair. I wrote an article about the livestock judging. Some of the judging seems very unfair so I slipped into the article a line that inferred that. When the editor read the piece, he damn near fired me for expressing my opinion. Somehow over the years, this wall between news reporting and commentary has disappeared.

ABC, CBS, and NBC have no real news commentary which means opinions of the news staff work their way into the news. I occasional watch CBS Morning News. As news reporting goes, it's a joke. It is roundtable in which news and commentary is blended together. Fox News is the only network channel that tries to draws a line between news and commentary, although viewers tend to ignore that line. CNN does have pure news programs, however they tend to slide in roundtables. With only a few exceptions Internet news sites blend news and commentary but often just pure commentary that is called the news.

At the heart of the problem is the viewer. Too many people watch Anderson 360, Tucker Carlson show, Rachel Maddow show, or some other news commentator and think they are actually seeing the news. This merging of news and commentary has produced two results. It has been widely popular with the public because watching commentary you agree with is far more entertaining than watching real news. Worst, it creates an image of news services as being biased, untrustworthy, misleading, and purveyors of false news which to some extent is true.

The solution is to announce that the following program is not to be taken as news but opinions of speaker about the news; that is, we need build a wall between news and commentary.

The godfather of broadcast journalism, Edward R. Murrow, stunned the media establishment in a speech delivered 60 years ago today. His speech to the Radio Television News Directors Association in 1958 blasted media executives for turning broadcast news into “an incompatible combination of show business, advertising and news.”
He said the public interest could not be served when news was merely “a commodity” to sell to advertisers. Real journalism, he pointed out, was the loser in this commodification.
His wise insights were true then and even more so today.

Edward R. Murrow’s warnings to news industry ring true today

Jeffrey M. McCall says Murrow would decry today’s news arena in which television anchors are heavily promoted as high profile celebrities who often mix commentary into their news reports.

thehill.com

It seems not many listened…news today is nothing but ideological commentary….I can’t believe people with a background in news can’t see it…

Theres a scene in the old Mary Tyler Moore show where Lou Grant is talking with the shows editor and he says “We don’t shape the news”, and the editor says, “Sure we do, by what we choose to broadcast.”

Now, you can live in a bubble and believe that all the news is, is straight reporting, but the public knows that’s a lie.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Preventing the spread of Fake News and Misinformation​

Start by emailing CNN

 

[Flopper]

The problem is that people are being controlled by the "news commentary".

The facts are facts. What is manipulating people isn't the facts, it's the "news commentary", it's exactly the part we're talking about here.

How do you control that "news commentary"?

Or do you just let it stay wild?

In a free society you can't control news commentary but commentary and news can be separated and public service announcements could remind audiences that commentary is not news but opinions. This might require some action by the FCC but news services could regulate themselves using awards and certification from trusted organizations such as the Pulitzer Committee as an incentive. Secondly, news organization need to clean up their act and get the bias out of the news. The concept of fair and balanced needs to be abandon. Going right or left in order neutralize what the completion is doing is largely responsible for the distrust Americans have for the news media.

For democracy to work, it is essential that we agree in some minimal way about what reality looks like. We are not, of course, all required to think the same way about big questions, or believe the same things, or hold the same values; in fact, it is expected that we won’t. But we need to have some very basic, shared understanding of what the facts actually are and that must come from the news media. When we can't do that, then we spend our time debating on what the facts are instead how we can solve the problem.

 

[frigidweirdo]

In a free society you can't control news commentary but commentary and news can be separated and public service announcements could remind audiences that commentary is not news but opinions. This might require some action by the FCC but news services could regulate themselves using awards and certification from trusted organizations such as the Pulitzer Committee as an incentive. Secondly, news organization need to clean up their act and get the bias out of the news. The concept of fair and balanced needs to be abandon. Going right or left in order neutralize what the completion is doing is largely responsible for the distrust Americans have for the news media.

For democracy to work, it is essential that we agree in some minimal way about what reality looks like. We are not, of course, all required to think the same way about big questions, or believe the same things, or hold the same values; in fact, it is expected that we won’t. But we need to have some very basic, shared understanding of what the facts actually are and that must come from the news media. When we can't do that, then we spend our time debating on what the facts are instead how we can solve the problem.

It won't matter. You could tell people that Fox News isn't news, and they'd still watch it and still accept it.

It's impossible to get out of "biased news", choosing which news story is number one of the day is inherently biased. And you can't have them all at the same time, all in number one position.

Yes, for democracy to work there needs to be something. The problem is that for democracy to work people need to be able to say things that aren't from the government line. Things that maybe can't be proven. Things that might be considered "fake news" when in reality they could be real.

 

[Concerned American]

Pulitzer Committee

There is an award for responsible, factual news reporting--it is called the Jefferson Award. Unfortunately it has, like the news, been twisted so far from its beginnings that it bears no resemblance to the standards that it stood for originally.

 

[Flopper]

It seems not many listened…news today is nothing but ideological commentary….I can’t believe people with a background in news can’t see it…

Theres a scene in the old Mary Tyler Moore show where Lou Grant is talking with the shows editor and he says “We don’t shape the news”, and the editor says, “Sure we do, by what we choose to broadcast.”

Now, you can live in a bubble and believe that all the news is, is straight reporting, but the public knows that’s a lie.

No news organization is perfect every editor and reporter has biases. The problem is the goal has changed from providing unbiased and fair reporting to satisfying the audience which means providing the kind news the audience wants to see. Today most news outlets fall into the liberal or conservative column but there are others that will slant their news to appeal to other special interest groups. The news has not always been this way. There was a time when newsrooms were not consider a profit center and were far less concerned about pleasing their audience.

Much of the distrust in the news media today can be traced back to long-term changes that began as early as the 1960s and accelerated in the 1980s, when media companies were bought by large conglomerates and chains, and increasing media concentration became a progressively larger problem. Back in late 60's David Sarnoff who was president of NBC made the decision that the News division would no longer be treated as a public service. Sarnoff saw no reason why the Division shouldn't be a profit center which means news had compete with the entertainment division. Turning news into dollars rapidly spread to the other networks. As the country polarized, network news began building their programming around targeted audiences to maintain market share. Today all major networks cater to specific groups by slanting news to it's audience. The same thing occurs on internet, most so called news programs will write whatever will produce clicks.

 

[Flopper]

It won't matter. You could tell people that Fox News isn't news, and they'd still watch it and still accept it.

It's impossible to get out of "biased news", choosing which news story is number one of the day is inherently biased. And you can't have them all at the same time, all in number one position.

Yes, for democracy to work there needs to be something. The problem is that for democracy to work people need to be able to say things that aren't from the government line. Things that maybe can't be proven. Things that might be considered "fake news" when in reality they could be real.

The idea is Fox News and CNN and other news outlets change their policy, The news hour will be unbiased as possible, no opinions and no interpretation of the news with balanced presentation. It will be considered a public service with ratings secondary. The various shows continue as they are but with one exception, the audience is told that what they see is the host's interpretation of the news and opinions do not necessarily represent the views management. The idea is that there is one place in every news outlet that reports the news as accurately and unbiased as possible.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The idea is Fox News and CNN and other news outlets change their policy, The news hour will be unbiased as possible, no opinions and no interpretation of the news with balanced presentation. It will be considered a public service with ratings secondary. The various shows continue as they are but with one exception, the audience is told that what they see is the host's interpretation of the news and opinions do not necessarily represent the views management. The idea is that there is one place in every news outlet that reports the news as accurately and unbiased as possible.

The problem is you're saying they should change their policy, and then saying that nothing much should change.

Without opinions or interpretation, nobody's going to watch it.

Find a news article and they pick out the facts and see what you're left with.

13 Miami-Dade school employees have died of Covid-19 since mid-August

Thirteen school employees from Miami-Dade County Public Schools have died from Covid-19 since August 16, the school district and local teacher union told CNN on Tuesday.

www.cnn.com

Here's the first article I came across on CNN. The first part deals with facts. But then they quote people. Is that a fact or is it opinion? It's a fact that someone said this, but what this person is saying might not be fact.

""These were extraordinary educators and people, and their loss is being felt throughout the community,""

Fact or opinion?

So if you say it's fact, because you're reporting what someone is saying, then they can just report what people are saying and pass it off as fact.

 

[j-mac]

No news organization is perfect every editor and reporter has biases. The problem is the goal has changed from providing unbiased and fair reporting to satisfying the audience which means providing the kind news the audience wants to see. Today most news outlets fall into the liberal or conservative column but there are others that will slant their news to appeal to other special interest groups. The news has not always been this way. There was a time when newsrooms were not consider a profit center and were far less concerned about pleasing their audience.

Much of the distrust in the news media today can be traced back to long-term changes that began as early as the 1960s and accelerated in the 1980s, when media companies were bought by large conglomerates and chains, and increasing media concentration became a progressively larger problem. Back in late 60's David Sarnoff who was president of NBC made the decision that the News division would no longer be treated as a public service. Sarnoff saw no reason why the Division shouldn't be a profit center which means news had compete with the entertainment division. Turning news into dollars rapidly spread to the other networks. As the country polarized, network news began building their programming around targeted audiences to maintain market share. Today all major networks cater to specific groups by slanting news to it's audience. The same thing occurs on internet, most so called news programs will write whatever will produce clicks.

I don’t disagree, how many outlets would you consider liberal, as opposed to conservative? And, what is social media’s finger on the scales doing to the industry?

 

[Flopper]

The problem is you're saying they should change their policy, and then saying that nothing much should change.

Without opinions or interpretation, nobody's going to watch it.

Find a news article and they pick out the facts and see what you're left with.

13 Miami-Dade school employees have died of Covid-19 since mid-August

Thirteen school employees from Miami-Dade County Public Schools have died from Covid-19 since August 16, the school district and local teacher union told CNN on Tuesday.

www.cnn.com

Here's the first article I came across on CNN. The first part deals with facts. But then they quote people. Is that a fact or is it opinion? It's a fact that someone said this, but what this person is saying might not be fact.

""These were extraordinary educators and people, and their loss is being felt throughout the community,""

Fact or opinion?

So if you say it's fact, because you're reporting what someone is saying, then they can just report what people are saying and pass it off as fact.

I'm saying the news, you know the one with the title .XXX NEWS, changes it's policy, no round table discussions, no interpretation of the news, and when presenting a clip of a politician, government offical, business man, or other celebrity no rebuttal or presentation of material to contradict him or her. In others words the news outlet amends it's policy to present just the news in it's news broadcast as unbiased and as balanced as possible.

The news commentary shows like Tucker Carlson, Anderson Cooper, etc. remain unchanged with only a policy statement before each show that the following is a news commentary and all statements made represent the opinion of the host, not necessarily the station nor management.

It is not the job of the news room to determine fact or fiction but just to present the news. It's the job of a news commentator and the viewer to weight the question of fact or fiction. One might argue that it is wrong for a newscaster to present what is obviously lies and misinformation. The newscaster has one of two opinion, present it and leave it to the news commentators to tear it apart or simply don't ignore it. News outlets are free to choose what they call news and what should be presented. Remember the New York Times credo, "All the news that is fit to print." Many of our greatest journalists and editors have followed that advice and it is served them well.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is not the job of the news room to determine fact or fiction but just to present the news.

And that’s what most do.

The problem is that the political climate has become so partisan and toxic that when the press do relate an accurate, factual accounting of an event, those who perceive that accurate, factual accounting as somehow detrimental to their political agenda accuse the press of reporting ‘fake news.’

 

[Flopper]

I don’t disagree, how many outlets would you consider liberal, as opposed to conservative? And, what is social media’s finger on the scales doing to the industry?

That is difficult say. The range or liberalism or connectivism run from fire breathing maniacs to centralists that lean left or right. TV networks all lean left with the exception of Fox News. Talk Radio is mostly conservative. On Internet website it would hard to say. There are hundreds of thousands of websites that present either news and/or news commentary.

Social media needs some oversight, but by who, I don't know. It should be whoever is responsible for the website. There could be some federal legislation that puts whoever is responsible for the website, jointly responsibly for liable and slander from their site. We need to be cognizant of the need for freedom of speech but also need to be cognizant of the need for compensation for those who have had that lives and business destroy by lies, misinformation, spread on social media.

 

[Flopper]

And that’s what most do.

The problem is that the political climate has become so partisan and toxic that when the press do relate an accurate, factual accounting of an event, those who perceive that accurate, factual accounting as somehow detrimental to their political agenda accuse the press of reporting ‘fake news.’

This is exactly why what we call the news needs a major overhaul. News should be just that a report of the happenings of the day without roundtable table discussions, interpretations of news, rebuttal of news pieces, and biased commentary. It should not be the job of the news room to determine what is true and what is false. That is a job for the news commentators and the audience. In short, we need a wall between opinion and news. That is the first step in restoring faith in the news media.