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 where you can claim 'I didn't lie,' or clearly adding ... editorial ... word choices.

Ultimately, whether blatant misrepresentation of physical facts or not, it's claiming to be merely reporting facts when in fact the underlying intention is to misrepresent the truth, or merely not care about the truth in an attempt to cause a reader's mind to believe something you want them to believe while at the same time they themselves believe they have just read an unbiased presentation of news. I.e 'What Actually Happened."

Also, it's fine to be biased so long as you're clear that you take a certain position. Breitbart doesn't pretend to not have a viewpoint. The MSM does. It's fine to be biased so long as everyone knows you are. (Many here would argue, as would I, that at the end of any year of reporting, Breitbart has in fact been less biased than the MSM.)

For CNN, NYT, practically every alphabet org, and the other many many many orgs that qualify as fake news, they are blatantly lying by not admitting they are carrying a propaganda message for certain interests. Even a story that is 100% technically factual leaves out facts, is worded a certain way, was handpicked to cause the reader/listener to walk away with a negative attitude toward the right, or a less negative attitude or positive attitude of the left.

I don't 'trust' any news organization ... I read, and read more, and wait, and after taking in enough points, the true shape appears. In most cases, I find that conservative news sources tend to be full of opinion but do not leave out significant facts (because they know their listeners/readers will skewer them - conservatives prefer the truth backed up by evidence and statistics ... i.e. proof ...) so usually I can be pretty certain that the more mainstream conservative sources will not totally misrepresent reality by either blatantly lying about it or leaving out significant portions. They know the truth will come out. The CNN's don'e have to worry about that because their audience doesn't follow up on truth ... they merely want to be told what they already want to believe, and leave it at that.

In the end, though, 99% of communication is non-verbal, and even verbal communication is 99% about what's included and what's left out.

So to me fake news is ... like the judge in the (60's?) who defined community standards said 'lewd and lascivious' can not be defined but you know it when you see it ...

We all know what fake news is. Determining the actual truth is a matter of sifting through 5 - 50 points of data and then waiting for more information to come up, and the picture appears.

Liberals don't have an interest in facts, only confirming evidence. So, they seek only 1 point of data, maybe another confirming one (CNN then the NYT) ... and then they put their heads in the sand. I have a friend whos a liberal voter -> not an activist or leader -> and she simply can not stand any fact. Any time she brings up some horrible thing Trump did or said, in a happy triumphant voice, like she's finally got me, I put the comment in context, note how it was twisted and taken out of context (or, frankly, sometimes he just says something stupid) ... and it's never long before she doesn't want to here me be rational and factual ... because the MERE pointing out of facts highlights that she's been misled by her media sources.

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.