Fake news

C

Chucktin

Member
Location
East Central Fla
I just saw one of those "historical photos" web pages that purports, _PURPORTS_ to have accurate Pictures of Historical interest. Yeah, right.
They included a picture of JFK and LBJ getting a briefing on the Cuban Missile Crisis. Only thing is I know that picture. It was taken at Cape Canaveral when they were visiting here.
Maybe, just maybe, the Missile Crisis was being discussed, but not in front of cameras. And while I have to check the dates I really don't think the two dates correspond.
We, in Florida, were certainly alarmed - a relative was transferred from NY State Border Patrol to First Pierce Beach and there were Nike Missiles at the West Palm Beach airport (we drove by them) but the whole thing was just unreal.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
 

I don't like the term, 'fake news'. It seems to be a cleaned up version of the term 'propaganda' mainly used by folks who do not understand either term or used as a verbal blanket to cover up what we want to hide.
 
Re: Cuban Missile Crisis. My dad was stationed at Fort Gordon in Georgia at the time and was called
in to be ready for any circumstances, such as a nuclear war.

I think people forget about military families and all they have to go through, especially the kids.
 

drifter said:
I don't like the term, 'fake news'. It seems to be a cleaned up version of the term 'propaganda' mainly used by folks who do not understand either term or used as a verbal blanket to cover up what we want to hide.
Click to expand...

'Fake news' and propaganda are two very different things.
 
Fake news has been around forever. "They" have always spoon-fed the public exactly what "they" wanted us to know. I wish there was an existing news outlet that would provide the NEWS without commentary.
 
From Wikipedia:

Fake news is a type of yellow journalism or propaganda that consists of deliberate misinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional print and broadcast news media or online social media.[SUP][1][/SUP] Fake news is written and published with the intent to mislead in order to damage an agency, entity, or person, and/or gain financially or politically,[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] often using sensationalist, dishonest, or outright fabricated headlines to increase readership, online sharing, and Internet click revenue. In the latter case, it is similar to sensational online "clickbait" headlines and relies on advertising revenue generated from this activity, regardless of the veracity of the published stories.[SUP][2][/SUP] Intentionally misleading and deceptive fake news is different from obvious satire or parody, which is intended to humor rather than mislead its audience.

(I wonder if Dewey Beats Truman fits this definition?)
 
drifter said:
I don't like the term, 'fake news'. It seems to be a cleaned up version of the term 'propaganda' mainly used by folks who do not understand either term or used as a verbal blanket to cover up what we want to hide.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. I guess it's easier to say "fake news" than explain what they don't want.
 
I see the term used in different contexts these days. One one hand, there are the politicians who label as "fake news" any news item they don't like, and that spreads to those who support those politicians. On the other hand, there is a range of stories on the Internet and in some publications that fit the Wikipedia definition. Stories like "This year's flu outbreak was caused by flu vaccine" and "Hillary murdered a staff member" fall into this category. If it is an important story, I google it and get to see how it is covered by a variety of news organizations. I also check snopes.
 
C'est Moi said:
Fake news has been around forever. "They" have always spoon-fed the public exactly what "they" wanted us to know. I wish there was an existing news outlet that would provide the NEWS without commentary.
Click to expand...
I do too C'est Moi. Fake news for me is when biased opinion is used to manipulate actual content in the attempt to convince the viewer. News without the commentary and just the facts would be the best way but I think we're too far gone and divided in the modern media
 
Stormy said:
I do too C'est Moi. Fake news for me is when biased opinion is used to manipulate actual content in the attempt to convince the viewer. News without the commentary and just the facts would be the best way but I think we're too far gone and divided in the modern media
Click to expand...
How do you know when it is Fake news? They don't always have commentary and are still called Fake News.
 
Ruthanne said:
How do you know when it is Fake news? They don't always have commentary and are still called Fake News.
Click to expand...
If you watch enough news from all networks you can see that there's always commentary and ways of reporting to tell what they want you to hear. You see it in all cable and local channels. Real news is when they report the facts as they happened and fake news is when they skew the facts and exaggerate some or exclude some to represent what they want you to believe happened
 
You can report facts and still be biased. It's not only what is reported, but what is left out.

So how are you going to know?
 
Stormy said:
If you watch enough news from all networks you can see that there's always commentary and ways of reporting to tell what they want you to hear. You see it in all cable and local channels. Real news is when they report the facts as they happened and fake news is when they skew the facts and exaggerate some or exclude some to represent what they want you to believe happened
Click to expand...
I watch lots of news and see the facts reported as happened and they still have called it Fake News. How do you know when facts are skewed? I have seen lots that seem like all facts and I cannot tell when they are skewed.
 
There is one news network that uses the same gimmick time and time again. They will come up with something they want to push and talk about it during their commentary shows. Then, during the following "news" segment, they will have an item where the newscasters say "people are saying..." to try to pass off their commentary as news. They are they only ones saying it, but their loyal viewers seem to accept it.

When I was a kid, the network news never told me about segregation or any of the less-than-positive aspects of our country at the time. During a family trip, I was aghast and confused at the sight of "whites only" restrooms and drinking fountains. I had never heard about such a thing. Shortly thereafter, I started playing with short wave radio. I found that the network news was almost the same as Voice of America (the US propaganda station). I would hear something entirely different on Radio Moscow or the BBC. After awhile, I began to assume that the "truth" was somewhere in between what I was hearing from all of those "news" broadcasts. It is much the same today, except with the Internet as the sources instead of the short wave radio.
 
Wandrin said:
There is one news network that uses the same gimmick time and time again. They will come up with something they want to push and talk about it during their commentary shows. Then, during the following "news" segment, they will have an item where the newscasters say "people are saying..." to try to pass off their commentary as news. They are they only ones saying it, but their loyal viewers seem to accept it.

When I was a kid, the network news never told me about segregation or any of the less-than-positive aspects of our country at the time. During a family trip, I was aghast and confused at the sight of "whites only" restrooms and drinking fountains. I had never heard about such a thing. Shortly thereafter, I started playing with short wave radio. I found that the network news was almost the same as Voice of America (the US propaganda station). I would hear something entirely different on Radio Moscow or the BBC. After awhile, I began to assume that the "truth" was somewhere in between what I was hearing from all of those "news" broadcasts. It is much the same today, except with the Internet as the sources instead of the short wave radio.
Click to expand...
You make good points. I didn't know a lot of what I learned later at one point in my life, too, and it was shocking!
 
I agree Wandrin. The internet gives us many perspectives on the news and access to stories that our local media chooses not to report. I also note the tone of the reporting. It is clear sometimes that an article is written to whip up outrage. Always a bad sign IMO.
 
Warrigal said:
I agree Wandrin. The internet gives us many perspectives on the news and access to stories that our local media chooses not to report. I also note the tone of the reporting. It is clear sometimes that an article is written to whip up outrage. Always a bad sign IMO.
Click to expand...
I really don't read internet news unless I do a purposeful search. The news I watch is pretty factual. I guess it depends on where you get your news.
 
At night I have a radio tuned to our ABC 24 hour news programming and I hear news and some commentary from around the world from the BBC, NPR, and sometimes Radio Netherlands. All programs are in English and it keeps me relatively well informed.
 
Warrigal said:
At night I have a radio tuned to our ABC 24 hour news programming and I hear news and some commentary from around the world from the BBC, NPR, and sometimes Radio Netherlands. All programs are in English and it keeps me relatively well informed.
Click to expand...
Good for you Warri! :)
 
My favorite for news on the Internet is Google News. For each major news story it allows me to see the headlines and articles from multiple sources, nicely gathered together. It also allows me to do a little configuration and tell it that I am more interested in health or science news than entertainment or sports, for example. Here's a link: Google News
 
In my lifetime I doubt that I ever heard the words "fake news" until the last year or so. A pol would state that something he was accused of wasn't true, and attempt to explain his way out of whatever had been reported, but the blanket "fake news" , without some corroborating info to say why that is, reeks of dishonesty.

If the local paper prints an article saying that DaveA was arrested and held for assault on someone, my answer, crying "fake news" is worthless, especially if they attach a photo or video of me attacking someone. It's OK to say, that this isn't true and I'll prove it, but otherwise all it accomplishes is to attempt to solidify my family and friends to support me, even if I am guilty as charged.

It is also an attempt to de-legitimize the free press, without which, like it or not, a democracy cannot and will not survive.
 
DaveA said:
In my lifetime I doubt that I ever heard the words "fake news" until the last year or so. A pol would state that something he was accused of wasn't true, and attempt to explain his way out of whatever had been reported, but the blanket "fake news" , without some corroborating info to say why that is, reeks of dishonesty.

If the local paper prints an article saying that DaveA was arrested and held for assault on someone, my answer, crying "fake news" is worthless, especially if they attach a photo or video of me attacking someone. It's OK to say, that this isn't true and I'll prove it, but otherwise all it accomplishes is to attempt to solidify my family and friends to support me, even if I am guilty as charged.

It is also an attempt to de-legitimize the free press, without which, like it or not, a democracy cannot and will not survive.
Click to expand...

I agree. I have never seen a period like the past 2 years where there were so many far-out-there fabricated stories that seemed to be designed to sway voters, yet they can't be called "fake news" because that term was appropriated by a public figure who uses the term to label any news story he doesn't like. I agree that it is an obvious attempt to delegitimize the free press and history has given us many examples of what happens if that attempt succeeds.
 
A handful of people control our media and they make sure their outlets push their agenda. Freedom of the press was intended to help keep the truth from being suppressed... it is being abused. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 helped put that in motion.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top