Resisting Fake News (a visual aid)

[superchuck500]

I can anticipate criticism that outlets like NPR, NBC, and CNN are not middle but left. But I think they're separating "news" from opinion. That's more and more difficult but I think that's the angle. Those outlets at least try to present actual news pieces in a fairly objective way. Though they don't always succeed.

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/kP4Yax1.png", width="800 or less">

 

[Tapxe]

This is exactly what Reddit told me you'd say. Nice try you liberal cry bagger.

/wishthatitwasnottrue

 

[Galbreath34]

The biggest thing to me is not "the" source, but committing to never running with something from only one source. If it's not being covered by more than a small group of outlets, ask yourself why. I don't have a problem with consuming stuff from bad sources, just as long as you understand what they're committed to doing to twist the story and as long as you don't trust them for primary news and interpretation. 90% of news stories we read in our lives are filler ("How's the weather? You doing good in Chicago friend?"). When a story matters, though, and we all know which ones those are, it's unconscionable to not consult a half dozen or more sources. When you hear there was an explosion in downtown Dallas, don't just hit Heat Street and read one piece about crazy Muslims and call it a day. Keep reading across the spectrum until you find out that some knucklehead shot at and hit a tanker truck that exploded, and some theorize it was road rage, but police are holding a press conference in 3 hours. Don't just run with the garbage and ignore the good sources because you hate them.

 

[Galbreath34]

This is exactly what Reddit told me you'd say. Nice try you liberal cry bagger.

/wishthatitwasnottrue

Well, technically second repost, so reddit is the reference to make. Touché.

 

[Taurus]

One really easy method is to just ask how much yelling do they do? If the host regularly shouts over his/her guests, they suck. Move on.

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

and yet writers from several outlets in the "Great Sources of News" circle just this month ran with a 2 year old mangled quote from Paul Ryan to cast him as cruelly mocking kids that get free lunch.

Also, Vox... lol

But, that said, I dont't disagree with most of the overall placement. Its just the issue to me is not people suddenly seeking out "fake news" its that MSM outlets continue to shred their own credibility, so that "fake" news doesnt really seem much faker than the 'real' thing.

Journalist, heal thyself.

 

[DaveXA]

One really easy method is to just ask how much yelling do they do? If the host regularly shouts over his/her guests, they suck. Move on.

If yelling is the standard, then CNN has that in spades. Just about every show has at least one segment dedicated to yelling, heh.

 

[Taurus]

If yelling is the standard, then CNN has that in spades. Just about every show has at least one segment dedicated to yelling, heh.

If they're bringing on a guest to interview them and proceed to yell over that same guest, then they suck.

NPR and the BBC never do that. They've had some pretty out-there guests and the hosts invariably remain civil. (Though at times, yes, you can hear incredulity or a touch of sarcasm in their voices, the volume remains respectfully low.)

It's a matter of intent. Is the intent to have an interview with someone in order to get their view, or to simply shout at them while espousing your view?

 

[Goatman Saint]

Another way is to look for the emotional triggers in written press. If you look at a well written news article it is fact based, without a lot of emotion into it. If you look at anything to the left or right of the middle there, look at how emotionally charged it is. Everyone on here knows I lean way left, so I picked a ridiculous piece of left wing trash from a left wing barge source. The next American Civil War begins on January 20&#8230; Second Amendment patriots may be called on to defend the Republic against left-wing terrorists ? NaturalNews.com Now, even the title is fishing for outrage. Read the first two paragraphs. It's obvious there are no facts, anyone who has written a college term paper or even a good high school paper can see there is nothing but trash trying to stir up emotions by quoting some other ridiculous trash source. No professor in the world would pass a paper like that. But, on both the left and the right this counts as journalism. The internet was supposed to make us smarter, but it seems at times all it has done is give every fool a platform.

 

[V Chip]

Natural News sure as **** isn't left wing garbage -- it's just straight up garbage. The vast majority of people I know who push that junk are right-wing, but a good number of granola moms push that stupidity, too.

 

[Saint_Ward]

Natural News sure as **** isn't left wing garbage -- it's just straight up garbage. The vast majority of people I know who push that junk are right-wing, but a good number of granola moms push that stupidity, too.

I think the assumption is that "crunchy's" are Left.. but you're right.. they're both. Either way, Natural News is garbage.

 

[V Chip]

I think the assumption is that "crunchy's" are Left.. but you're right.. they're both. Either way, Natural News is garbage.

Yeah that's what I was admitting -- mostly right of the ones I know, but there are still a lot of the crunchies on the left who do too. But in my experience admittedly anecdotal, it's the right wingers who utilize stuff like Natural News or FoodBabe as part of their anti-science anti-technology anti government agency spiel.

 

[RetroMcBananaFace]

Another way is to look for the emotional triggers in written press.

This is the key to fake news. 100% of the time, it is designed to appeal to the reader on an emotional level above anything else.

This is why the fake news stories during the campaigns were about murders and child trafficking, stuff like that. If they were just about something like Hillary's bad real estate deal or some governmental waste, nobody would give it a second look.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

NPR and the BBC never do that. They've had some pretty out-there guests and the hosts invariably remain civil. (Though at times, yes, you can hear incredulity or a touch of sarcasm in their voices, the volume remains respectfully low.)

NPR has a very deferential style (perhaps too soft)
a few days after the election they had one of the alt-right (nazi) leaders and just gave him a platform - what he said was bizarro world stuff and it was so weird hearing it first person on NPR - historically, that would have been a classic "give him enough rope to hang himself" (which he was more than happy to do) -- but i'm not sure if it did what they intended
-- even when the interview subtler (but equally noxious) peopele, they'll typically challenge once and if the person doubles down on lawyer/political talk the reporters will let them get away with it

HOWEVER, one of the main host (guy, sounds like he's in his 60s maybe) absolutely will NOT let people get away with lies and double talk - he will keep coming to the question again and again until they properly address it
- it's a beautiful thing

ETA Owen Bennet-Jones

 

[saintsfan26]

I find it laughable that CNN is anywhere near the middle. If they aren't biased leftists, then nobody is.

 

[RetroMcBananaFace]

I find it laughable that CNN is anywhere near the middle. If they aren't biased leftists, then nobody is.

Sorry, but no one that believes Brietbart as a reputable source of news has any right to call anyone else biased.