Preventing the spread of Fake News and Misinformation

[Flopper]

But then how do you stop people repeating something that's fake, but have the repeat something that isn't fake?

One of the ways is not to get into long arguments attempting to expose the misinformation on media sites such as USMB. Each time you respond to the poster you give him a platform to continue with more misinformation. Most people do not follow threads of a discussion but rather they read posts consecutively and continue seeing the misinformation being spread in the responses. So if you really want to stop the spread, ignore those posters. You will not only be limiting the spread of the misinformation but will be denying the poster what he craves most, attention. People that are ignored either go elsewhere or write posts that get replies. Right now it seems lies, misinformation, and outrageous statements get most attention.

 

[HenryBHough]

All we need is a "Ministry of Truthiness". An agency with unfetter authority to pre-censor anything that is to be distributed to anyone. Even a family member. It not only wold prevent the spread of information not supportive of a "national agenda" it would provide for the incarceration of anyone evil enough to gainsay the regime. Of course with authority for summary execution upon a second offense.

Can't work?

But it does.

It's well loved by North Koreans - under penalty if they don't.

But it doesn't have to start full-bore. Requiring a proper level of "social credit" will do for a start. For example, if one hasn't been vaccinated against the regime's "plague du jour" then one cannot have a social credit chip implanted.

The lack of that would make entry to any public place - or any place of business - impossible. The doors just wouldn't open.

Tempted to get a bogus implant? No big deal. If detected it's simply removed. By a pack enforcement dogs.

 

[Independent thinker]

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.

I just for the life of me can't figure out why lefties and the lefty media want to continue with the lies and the misinformation.

 

[Mac1958]

Because he went onto the internet, found out what people liked, and he parroted that. He entertained them, he understood them.

It was easier than that. He knew the talk radio audience, and just parroted talk radio, word for fuckin' word. Fish in a barrel. Target marketing. And five years later, he hasn't changed that strategy. He has spoken to them exclusively that whole time.

 

[Flopper]

And that is by design...Think about it...Recently the Media Research Center (MRC) in one of its articles was deemed "false" by Politifact...Problem is that MRC was using direct numbers from the CDC....

None of the so called News we get is true anymore....

Just like most things in life, no news service get's it all right. They all make mistakes and pass on misinformation. However for some organizations, creation of false news and misinformation is their business. These organization are on all sides of the pollical spectrum, in science, business, and just about every aspect of life. And of course there is social media which gives every person with a computer the opportunity to crease false news and misinformation. Into this malaise of partisanship, crooks, vandals, money grabbers, and conspiracy theorist, exist the reputable news services that do their best to separate the wheat and shaft.

If enough people, really believe that all news media is not to be trusted then this country will come apart at the seams because information is life blood of this society.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Remember, last september when cnn was questioning vaccines when orange man was around? After the installed regime came to power, cnn couldn't quit gushing about how wonderful these injections were. Remember?

Past vaccine disasters show why rushing a coronavirus vaccine now would be 'colossally stupid' | CNN

Vaccine experts are warning the federal government against rushing out a coronavirus vaccine before testing has shown it's both safe and effective. Decades of history show why they're right.

www.cnn.com

 

[Flopper]

How do you stop fake news? It's almost impossible.

China is stopping the spread of fake news by totally controlling everything that is reported. Problem with this is that now what the government says is often fake news.

I think the only real way you can have of this is to force news outlets to be news outlets. Make a distinction between news outlets and those who peddle crap. Give accreditation and make sure everyone knows who is a news outlet and who is speaking fantasy. Have a group of people who are independent of the government and the media who check things out. Do audits of these companies and try and make media outlets push only truth, and if it's opinion, that it's clear it is opinion.

Yes, accreditation is a good idea. Years ago there were organizations that did this. I think we need to bring the idea of the editorial page to the internet, a separation between news events and commentary. Also, we need to stop the anonymous posting and comments on social media. It has become a license for lying, scandal, and libel. As a small newspaper editor wrote in my home town many years ago, We don't accept anonymous comments and articles. If you're afraid put your name on what you write, it doesn't belong in this newspaper.

 

[Flopper]

Remember, last september when cnn was questioning vaccines when orange man was around? After the installed regime came to power, cnn couldn't quit gushing about how wonderful these injections were. Remember?

Past vaccine disasters show why rushing a coronavirus vaccine now would be 'colossally stupid' | CNN

Vaccine experts are warning the federal government against rushing out a coronavirus vaccine before testing has shown it's both safe and effective. Decades of history show why they're right.

www.cnn.com

There is nothing wrong with this as long as it appears in news commentary and not the news. Over the years, news and news commentary have come together and that needs to change. Also the viewing public needs to understand the difference between the two. I believe the reason for blending commentary and news is the public prefers commentary. Real news can be dull compared to commentary.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Just like most things in life, no news service get's it all right. They all make mistakes and pass on misinformation. However for some organizations, creation of false news and misinformation is their business. These organization are on all sides of the pollical spectrum, in science, business, and just about every aspect of life. And of course there is social media which gives every person with a computer the opportunity to crease false news and misinformation. Into this malaise of partisanship, crooks, vandals, money grabbers, and conspiracy theorist, exist the reputable news services that do their best to separate the wheat and shaft.

If enough people, really believe that all news media is not to be trusted then this country will come apart at the seams because information is life blood of this society.

 

[Decus]

C-Span
Associated Press
BBC
The Economist
NPR
Reuters

Any story that does not appear in one of the above is most probably false news or only of local interest.

So I take it the following sources are suspect and not to be relied on:

Washington Post
New York Times
CNN
MSNBC
Wall Street Journal
USA Today
Newsweek
LA Times
And of course any source that is deemed "right-wing".

.

 

[whitehall]

Who get's to judge what is fake news and misinformation?
We all do. There are 6 ways you can use to spot fake news. This is how creditable news services and people that really need to know the truth do it. Those that create false news depend on the fact that most readers are to lazy to check out the story.

1. Ask Yourself, "Why Has This Story Been Written?
Is it to persuade me to accept a certain viewpoint? Is it selling me a particular product? Or is it trying to get me to click through to another website? Am I being triggered?

2. Check the Source.
Check the web address for the page you're reading. Spelling errors in company names, or strange-sounding extensions like ".infonet" and ".offer," rather than ".com" or ".co.uk," may mean that the source is suspect.

Then check whether or not the author or publisher is familiar, stop to consider their reputation and professional experience. Are they known for their expertise on the matter? Or do they tend to exaggerate?

Be aware that people who spread fake news and "alternative facts" sometimes create web pages, newspaper mockups, or "doctored" images that look official, but aren't. So, if you see a suspicious post that looks like it's from the World Health Organization (WHO), for example, check the WHO's own site to verify that it's really there.

3. See Who Else is Reporting the Story.
Avoid leaping to the conclusion that all main stream media (MSM) output is fake. This can be as unwise as following every rumor or conspiracy theory.

Professional global news agencies such as Reuters, CNN and the BBC have rigorous editorial guidelines and extensive networks of highly trained reporters, so are a good place to start. But no one is unbiased, and anyone can make a mistake, so keep looking.

4. Examine the Evidence.
A credible news story will include plenty of facts – quotes from experts, survey data and official statistics, for example. Or detailed, consistent and corroborated eye-witness accounts from people on the scene. If these are missing, question it!

Does the evidence prove that something definitely happened? Or, have the facts been selected or "twisted" to back up a particular viewpoint?

5. Don't Take Images at Face Value
Modern editing software has made it easy for people to create fake images that look real. In fact, research shows that only half of us can tell when images are fake. However, there are some warning signs you can look out for. Strange shadows on the image, for example, or jagged edges around a figure.

Images can also be 100 percent accurate but used in the wrong context. For example, photos of litter covering a beach could be from a different beach or from 10 years ago, not the recent alleged event.

You can use tools such as Google Reverse Image Search to check where an image originated and whether it has been altered.

6. Check that It Sounds Right
Finally, use your common sense! Bear in mind that fake news is designed to "feed" your biases, hopes or fears.

For example, it's unlikely that your favorite designer brand is giving away a million free dresses to people who turn up to its stores. Equally, just because your colleague believes that two married co-workers are having an affair, doesn't mean it's true.

MindTools | Home

Essential skills for an excellent career

www.mindtools.com

Most Americans have the ability to judge "information" that they think is bogus. Editorials are opinion pieces and you can take them or leave them and we do every day. What you seem to be talking about creating a government run authority with punitive power to deal with so-called misinformation. This is a dangerous concept and deals with the Amendment that the Founding Fathers thought was the most important, freedom of speech so the question remains "who gets to judge the degree and apparent severity of "misinformation"?

 

[Decus]

It is not mutations that that are a problem. This virus mutates constantly. Most of them are harmless. A very small number of the untold millions of mutations are classified as variant because they are potential harmfully. The WHO, is tracking a number of these variants that are of concern. The Alpha (B.1.1.7), Beta (B.1.351, B.1.351.2, B.1.351.3), Delta (B.1.617.2, AY.1, AY.2, AY.3), and Gamma (P.1, P.1.1, P.1.2) variants are circulating in the United States and are classified as variants of concern. We don't know where a variant first occurred just where it was first reported.

In this thread a poster going by the name Dana said: "I want to agree with it now but the lies are getting people killed. It's keeping a virus alive to mutate into new and more lethal variants."

Why would you want to repeat to me the facts I've already posted - spelled out in the CDC article that I linked? You might want to tell Dana that she can relax as she seems to be clueless and in need of your help.

.

 

[Flopper]

USA Today and Wall Street Journal are generally reliable sources. However both Washington Post and the New York Times are too deeply into democratic politics to be considered unbiased, however there news stories have proved to be factually correct. MSNBC is really not a news source. They are almost all news commentary and biased toward democrat agendas. WSJ is surprisingly centralist consider their audience is mostly big business and investors.

News outlets can be political biased and still provide factual news. Unfortunately, most don't.

 

[Flopper]

Most Americans have the ability to judge "information" that they think is bogus. Editorials are opinion pieces and you can take them or leave them and we do every day. What you seem to be talking about creating a government run authority with punitive power to deal with so-called misinformation. This is a dangerous concept and deals with the Amendment that the Founding Fathers thought was the most important, freedom of speech so the question remains "who gets to judge the degree and apparent severity of "misinformation"?

Absolutely not. I was thinking of awards based on opinions of some the most prestigious journalist associations such as

American Press Institute​

Pulitzer Committee at Columbia​

Northwest School of Journalism

I'm sure there are other others.
IMHO, the most important change that needs to be made in news reporting is the separation of opinion from factual news. This was once the mark a good journalist. Today many news organization actually encourage reporters to write articles that are in line with the editorial views of the organization.

 

[frigidweirdo]

One of the ways is not to get into long arguments attempting to expose the misinformation on media sites such as USMB. Each time you respond to the poster you give him a platform to continue with more misinformation. Most people do not follow threads of a discussion but rather they read posts consecutively and continue seeing the misinformation being spread in the responses. So if you really want to stop the spread, ignore those posters. You will not only be limiting the spread of the misinformation but will be denying the poster what he craves most, attention. People that are ignored either go elsewhere or write posts that get replies. Right now it seems lies, misinformation, and outrageous statements get most attention.

Perhaps, but then I'd guess a lot of people like doing this as much as others like spreading misinformation.

You can't change human nature. You have to work with human nature. You can't tell people not to do something, you have to actively put something in place which changes their behavior.

 

[j-mac]

Just like most things in life, no news service get's it all right. They all make mistakes and pass on misinformation. However for some organizations, creation of false news and misinformation is their business. These organization are on all sides of the pollical spectrum, in science, business, and just about every aspect of life. And of course there is social media which gives every person with a computer the opportunity to crease false news and misinformation. Into this malaise of partisanship, crooks, vandals, money grabbers, and conspiracy theorist, exist the reputable news services that do their best to separate the wheat and shaft.

If enough people, really believe that all news media is not to be trusted then this country will come apart at the seams because information is life blood of this society.

What do you mean "if"? Hell man, News is already believed to be broken into ideological lines drawn by a silly generation who were told how they were 'special little snowflakes' and every view was valid no matter if it was wrong or not....

Now, you tell me, News outlets are split into either one political side or the other, with one side having 99% of TV, 95% of print, and the internet is largely run by leftist activist in terms of search engines...It is pervasive...

So, you asked "who gets to judge", my simple answer is that it is up to each one of us to judge for ourselves...We no longer have the luxury of waiting for the 6 o'clock news to tell us the truth anymore...But, that's what liberal activists within the Journalism sector wanted.

 

[Flopper]

What do you mean "if"? Hell man, News is already believed to be broken into ideological lines drawn by a silly generation who were told how they were 'special little snowflakes' and every view was valid no matter if it was wrong or not....

Now, you tell me, News outlets are split into either one political side or the other, with one side having 99% of TV, 95% of print, and the internet is largely run by leftist activist in terms of search engines...It is pervasive...

So, you asked "who gets to judge", my simple answer is that it is up to each one of us to judge for ourselves...We no longer have the luxury of waiting for the 6 o'clock news to tell us the truth anymore...But, that's what liberal activists within the Journalism sector wanted.

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

 

[Concerned American]

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

That was absolutely true in the journalism school that I attended in 1969. The outlets and the people reporting the news today disregard that and there is no such thing as OBJECTIVE reporting anymore. Every news story has the publisher's political spin on it today.

 

[Flopper]

Perhaps, but then I'd guess a lot of people like doing this as much as others like spreading misinformation.

You can't change human nature. You have to work with human nature. You can't tell people not to do something, you have to actively put something in place which changes their behavior.

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.

 

[Flopper]

That was absolutely true in the journalism school that I attended in 1969. The outlets and the people reporting the news today disregard that and there is no such thing as OBJECTIVE reporting anymore. Every news story has the publisher's political spin on it today.

And that is what needs to change. Being biased is fact of life and it's is ok as long as the news is kept sacrosanct. Whenever opinions an explanations creep into the news, it is no longer news.

IMHO, if the media does not straighten this out, we will begin seeing government entering the news media probably expanding C-SPAN and eventually ending up with government control and what is now news media with be comments and opinion about the news which is a lot of what it is now.