Fake News?

[bucktalk]

While we're living in a time of demanding things be done quickly from microwave popcorn to speedy internet...our quick glances of 'fake news' on various electronic devises and social media is becoming a huge problem. I find myself constantly telling those who ask, "did you hear about....." (then they give some outlandish 'news' story)..."please take as much time as you need to verify that news story".

It's pretty alarming how gullible and lazy we've become with believing and sharing news thats driven by falsehood and not truth. But I'm not sure what we can do to curtail 'fake news'. Scary stuff.

[OkiePoke]

Don't call it fake news. Call it propaganda.

[dankrutka]

Don't call it fake news. Call it propaganda.

I think those are actually different things and both have always been around, but they are amplified now because people can curate these news stories via social media. Previously, journalists were the gatekeepers and, while not perfect, they did a better job overall of being accurate. Now, 100% made up fake news stories can be created for click-bait money grabs. On the other hand, there are also more biased sites that feed propaganda that constantly tilt the facts their way and often stretch the truth pretty far. Media has and always will have biases in some way, but we have to figure out how people can better differentiate fake, dishonestly biased, and just biased news. I work on a lot of media literacy stuff in education to help teachers work with students to become more saavy media consumers, but there are a lot of adults that need help too.

[Pete]

Information today is much, much better than it was just a couple of decades ago.

I don't find it that hard to sort through what is legit and what isn't.

I really don't think much has changed... There will always be people who accept news without considering the source and the source's motivation. Whether this is from "traditional media" or not, the issue is still the same.

What's different now is the easy ability to check and verify, read more on your own. It wasn't that long ago all anyone knew was from the paper and evening news. Not only do papers in particular have massive biases, the information is always limited to what they choose to cover and print.

Things are a million times better now IMO.

[OkiePoke]

If the reader brings away a viewpoint from the article that the writer is suggesting, either by faking it or stretching facts, the writer is pushing a viewpoint on the reader. The deception is there. That is why I call it propaganda. I believe if more people do that, they would be less likely to "accept" fake news in society.

[dankrutka]

Information today is much, much better than it was just a couple of decades ago.

I don't find it that hard to sort through what is legit and what isn't.

I agree, but you're not the average media consumer. I've repeatedly see grown adults posting the most absurd stories that could have been fact-checked in ten seconds (or with common sense), but they will stick to it even when provided counter evidence. For saavy consumers, this is a great era. A lof of people are not saavy consumers. Study after study has shown that people struggle to identify credible info. Here's a recent study from some people I know, but students are not the only ones struggling: https://ed.stanford.edu/news/stanfor...rmation-online

[OkiePoke]

People read headlines. They aren't going to research to determine if the source/site/story is credible.

[Pete]

The same gullible people were until very recently limited to whatever local papers printed.

You could argue that deep-seeded fundamental beliefs about many topics were completely shaped by rich white men who totally controlled what people 'knew'.

And for this reason, you see a massive divergence in views and opinions between people over 45 who grew up on local papers and those younger who have been receiving and collecting info from thousands of sources.

[TheTravellers]

‘Fake News’ Is Real. Here’s How To Know If You’re Reading It.

Also a thread in the politics section about it - http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=42907

[dankrutka]

The same gullible people were until very recently limited to whatever local papers printed.

You could argue that deep-seeded fundamental beliefs about many topics were completely shaped by rich white men who totally controlled what people 'knew'.

And for this reason, you see a massive divergence in views and opinions between people over 45 who grew up on local papers and those younger who have been receiving and collecting info from thousands of sources.

I totally agree that the mainstream media historically provided limited viewpoints (as you said, rich white male perspectives, for example - even if black papers like the Oklahoma City Black Dispatch led by Roscoe Dunjee did provide divergent points of view), but they did have journalism degrees. So, while more views are now available (which is good) they can lack any level of journalistic integrity (which is bad). So, it is a mixed bag.

[Pete]

Journalism degrees do not equal journalistic integrity.

[Roger S]

Meh... Journalism is done.... People get their information from Facebook memes today.

To borrow a verse from the Drive-By Truckers...

Only simple men can see the logic in whatever
Smarter men can whittle down till you can fit it on a sticker
Get it stuck like mud and bugs to names that set the standard,
They’ll live it like it’s gospel and they’ll quote it like it’s scripture

[Pete]

I would argue there is a ton more very high journalism now than ever before.

And, it's incredibly easy for anyone to access.

As I said, I don't think it's that hard to distinguish between what is good and valuable and what is junk.


The biggest threat the current model presents IMO is that it allows the closed-minded to filter out anything they don't want to hear and just stick with 'news' outlets that confirm and reinforce their existing beliefs.

[dankrutka]

Journalism degrees do not equal journalistic integrity.

Agreed. I'm not arguing for a binary viewpoint (trained journalists have integrity/other don't), but just thinking in terms of a spectrum... On the whole, can we not agree that journalists tend to have more journalistic integrity in their methods overall than those without those degrees? Maybe you don't agree. But I do think the media gatekeeper role has to play in our civic lives...

[Roger S]

I would argue there is a ton more very high journalism now than ever before.

And, it's incredibly easy for anyone to access.

I wouldn't argue it with you either but the average American would.... Or at least the majority of the average American's I associate with on a daily basis would.

[Pete]

I wouldn't argue it with you either but the average American would.... Or at least the majority of the average American's I associate with on a daily basis would.

That sentiment is way stronger in the areas which support the current leadership, for obvious reasons.

[Roger S]

That sentiment is way stronger in the areas which support the current leadership, for obvious reasons.

Exactly.... Standing in line at the polling station this election cycle the conversation around me sounded more like a Facebook feed.... Unfortunately the speed at which fake news/propaganda can be spread these days is a huge problem and most people won't take the time to research it. They just share it like it's gospel.

Most recently it was the big blowup about Starbucks hiring 10,000 refugees. My Facebook feed blew up with people asking why they weren't hiring veterans when in fact a quick Google search revealed several news sources, both conservative and liberal, that Starbucks has hired 8000+ veterans since 2013 with a goal of 10k by the end of 2018.

When everyone was in an uproar over Colin Kaepernick not standing for the national anthem I posted a pic of Babe Ruth with the caption that he never stood for the national anthem..... No one even bothered to fact check and see that the national anthem was not yet the national anthem when Babe Ruth played baseball nor was it played before sporting events..... Gullibility really seems to run rampant more than I remember it in decades past. That's not to say people haven't always been gullible but like the spread of misinformation it now spreads at light speed.

[Pete]

^

But again, I would argue that the gullible always have and always be gullible.

And many of those same people just blindly follow what they are told by other people, whether it is through Facebook, the watercooler, journalists with an agenda, the social circle and even their preacher.


There was a great study just done that shows there is a large percentage of the American population that are drawn strongly to authoritism. That they want to see things simply and willingly follow strong leaders.

There will always be people like that, especially those from the current older generations who were socialized to blindly follow authority in almost every form.

[Roger S]

There was a great study just done that shows there is a large percentage of the American population that are drawn strongly to authoritism. That they want to see things simply and willingly follow strong leaders.

There will always be people like that, especially those from the current older generations who were socialized to blindly follow authority in almost every form.

+1000

Yes... Since about the time of the FDR administration.

[Bunty]

I would argue there is a ton more very high journalism now than ever before.

And, it's incredibly easy for anyone to access.

As I said, I don't think it's that hard to distinguish between what is good and valuable and what is junk.


The biggest threat the current model presents IMO is that it allows the closed-minded to filter out anything they don't want to hear and just stick with 'news' outlets that confirm and reinforce their existing beliefs.

LOL, Fake news or satire is even more incredibly easy to access.

[Roger S]

LOL, Fake news or satire is even more incredibly easy to access.

You don't even have to access it. It comes to you.

[Pete]

LOL, Fake news or satire is even more incredibly easy to access.

Right, which means you actually have to think rather than just blindly follow what someone says, writes or posts.

The only people who don't seem to be able to make the proper distinction are those who would rather not think for themselves and that's endemic of a much bigger problem than just the media.

[Rover]

But most people accept fake news because of bias confirmation syndrome. If it fits their narrative it tends to get believed and they don't seek the truth. Even smart people and cool people do this.

[Pete]

You must be define 'smart' differently because seeking confirmation bias and having a closed mind is the opposite IMO.

[baralheia]

Perhaps Rover meant "Even otherwise smart..."? That makes more sense to me, imho.