Replies

Fake news is outright lying, making up facts ... but it's also an attempt to manipulate the narrative via partial presentation of the facts . . .

Several people have responded with comments on unverified claims, or making a big deal out of a small story just because it fits the narrative. I don't disagree with their comments. But your comment brought to mind a specific example (from several years ago, before the 'fake news' label was used anywhere).

The format was, "Some Republicans claim that (X) . . . but Mrs. Clinton's defenders maintain that . . ."

This is lying with pseudo-quantitative formulations.

Journalists are expected to use the most applicable characterization of pseudo-quantitative labels. In the normal structure, there are 'few', 'several', 'many', 'most', etc., with 'some' being more like 'a few' than 'many.' So the above format is essentially, "A few partisan political operatives claim (implying that there is no substantiation, since anything can be 'claimed') one thing, while the unified team of non-partisan (since no partisan affiliation was mentioned) 'defenders' (nary an aggressive person among them) steadfastly and bravely 'maintain' the opposite.

It was 'true' in that every word was factual, but it was misleading. Taking it apart, it was not only Republicans who believed (X) (it wasn't really about Hillary being a crook, but it might as well have been so I'll use that). Independents believed that as well - I know because I am one. And if those who believe she is a crook are not limited to partisan Republicans, then that is not a 'fair' characterization. Also, while we may have been a minority of the total population (or might not), there were certainly a lot of us in absolute terms, so it would have been just as 'true' to say, "Many Americans recognize that Hillary Clinton is a crook, but some Democrat operatives claim it's not true."

So, what is 'fake news?' It's any report which deliberately conveys an impression that is not the best possible use of language (even if the writer is so biased he/she doesn't recognize the misleading nature of the formulation), as well as any report which claims to be factual but does not present actual fact beyond correctly quoting someone. It's not 'true' just because you get the quotes correct, if those you quote are lying.

Yep.

And ... a lot of the things we're talking about can't be proven in a court of law. The Times was apparently just busted for quoting Trump as saying 'we're going to tell the undocumented to get the hell out' when in fact he said 'the gangsters, drug dealers' etc. (that's an accurate paraphrase -> the Times simply replaced 'Criminals' with 'Undocumented' -> so in that case that would be a flat out lie.

But a lot of it is intentionally misleading the listener with omission and commission.

If one believes in the Left's mission, then one might argue 'the press is fighting the good fight.'

But that doesn't change the fact even those people must grant that the press is lying about the fact that they are fighting a fight rather than 'reporting what happened'.

So, it's totally fake "journalism."

Stated as simply as possible: They do not see their job as 'when the listener/reader walked away, he had a more accurate view of what actually happened - what actually TOOK PLACE - in the physical universe today, and when I added my opinion, it was clearly my opinion, and that opinion could not be mistaken by anyone but a fool for the section where I was reporting what happened in the physical universe, what actually took place..'

On NPR - you can just hear it in their voices as they interview each other ... dripping with disdain and hatred. And THAT is communication with a fake news violation of commission.

So while reading the simple news, already carefully selected, they are practically mocking Trump. These days they don't even try to hide it.