Of course "news" is biased. From millennia ago, when most people learned about events from neighborhood gossips to modern social media equivalents, and from early hand-printed newspapers to the equally numerous online sources, the news reporting has varied in quality and objectivity, but always reflected the biases of the providers. And often that bias came from deliberate political intent.
This article, and most of the comments, seems more concerned with the direction of the bias. I suppose this reflects the partisan posture of the Times--itself part of the problem if we want objectivity.
See the Perception Gap Project for a more balanced and disturbing view of media bias. They tested the gap in understanding of how partisan respondents answered questions about political issues and how opponents thought they would answer. And they found that almost all media, including the NY Times, increased that gap.
To recycle a biblical allegory, something about a mote in one's eye?
3
@Bob Krantz
Thanks for pointing out the Perception Gap Project - seems like a great project and one sorely needed. In this case it does seem like this article is driving awareness of where news media comes from, which sounds like one of the PGP objectives. Political campaigns masquerading as news organizations seems deceptive.
I don't think NYT is without bias, but I do think it generally would be supportive of the PGP aims (below). It would be nice if they could help spread the PGP message more directly - perhaps a story about it!
From the PGP website:
"What should we do about the Perception Gap?
First, as individuals we should stop participating in the polarization ecosystem. This means broadening the scope of sources from which we get our news, challenging those who try to paint all members of either political party as evil or extreme, and having conversations with people with different views. Second, we need to raise awareness about deliberate efforts in our society to foster division. This includes political actors who benefit from a divided, rather than united society, and media sources that manipulate and fabricate content with the sole aim of generating outrage. Finally, we need to reform the incentive structures in our society that cause media and political actors to amplify divisive content."
5
The dichotomy of values lies in the nurturing of society over time with affluence where thinking becomes secondary and social belonging is paramount.
Television has always been the worst news medium because it employs TV values first, news values second. Remember the Balloon Boy hoax about 10 years ago, when a kid did not hijack his dad's hot-air balloon, but the family hijacked an entire day of cable news airtime? And local TV news is worse. The hysterical coverage of every inner-city homicide ramps up white suburban fear and stokes racism. What about the thousands and thousands who aren't killed that day?
The fake-newspaper websites can proliferate because one can have a "newspaper" without a printing press or a staff these days. Another case of unintended consequences.
So, how can this made to be illegal? How do we fix this?
2
In my area there are two stations with Sinclair ties that share a newsroom. Most of the local on-air people are familiar faces who have been in the area for a while, and do strictly local news and brief national and world updates--balanced and unexceptionable, and trustworthy. It's the Sinclair must-run segments, melded into the local news, that are heavily slanted to right-wing memes. There's a semi-daily Terror Alert Desk segment that comes blazing in--and like as not reports a car bomb in Ecuador. And the morning news now ends five minutes early to make room for Boris Epshteyn's breathless encomiums for Donald Trump, or a three minute hate for the Dems.
2
@Steve Paradis
The Terror Alert Desk is misleading, but has its roots in 1950s radio, when Gordon McLendon had "first news first, breaking news from our mobile news cruiser" that was usually just a fender-bender.
I understand Epshteyn has been dropped by Sinclair. Name too blatantly Russian maybe?
Local news has become a joke, wallowing in “if it bleeds, it leads” editing for years, getting sucked up by corporate mega companies pushing a corporate agenda, and favoring national and “cute stories over real local issues for a very longtime now. Budgets have been cut and “stories” are picked up from outside sources and feeds. Sadly the public has sat idly by and cared little for it all.
Our real local choices have greatly diminished in most markets, and we are going to pay a big price for it all in years to come.
6
@George S That's a great point. I haven't watched local news for years, especially in NYC, where it's been garbage for years. So why people trusting local news in the first place is highly suspect. All they want to see, for the most part, is what Page Six reporter is going to tell them happened to a Kardashian after the commercial. Now this article is trying to tell me people trust the local news? I guess people with no teeth in the flyover states do who see it as news in the first place. Then the fake news comes on and they believe that even more. Gold help us.
1
Russia has already won. Nobody trusts anybody. Everybody hates everybody.
Out here on the rural North Coast not a night goes by without some somber or spittle-spewing pastor quoting the part of the Bible that says Liberals Must Be Killed..."no ma'am, no sir, I mean Literally killed. Your God calls you now. Will you work for your savior or will you sit home alone and worried and let that glory fall to another?".
Of course this is what Putin wants, and many I others, I'd bet, but one man and his party, all alone, brought these decades-old dreams to fruition. Trump, and McConnell, and Roger (you gonna sleep with that?) Ailes, and the Murdoichs, the Sinclairs, Bannon and the rest.
Funny thing is, their biggest victims, the people who willingly lay down under the knife of their lies are red-blooded, patriotic, kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out Real Americans.
Too afraid, too uneducated, too egotistical to see their saviors care not one whit about American This or Conservative That.
Their leaders are a pile ungodly rich and connected, loud-mouthed and soulless being who care about one single thing: they want to see it burn.
That's it. They want destruction. Ask them, any of them, what comes after, what's next when they win? Not a peep. Not a hint of an answer other than blank panic spread across their well-fed faces that they couldhave been found out.
This isn't Left v. Right. This is World v. Destruction.
5
Having banned both Critical Thinking and Civics from most of our educational units makes the good ole USofA vulnerable to the easy, mendacious and pervasive propaganda of the far far FAR 'right,' who currently have cornered the market in 'our' wholly-corporate-owned mass media.
I cannot wait for the day when the Left (finally!) co-opts their insidious tactics.
5
Ask your Republican friends: Do you really trust the real Donald Trump? Would you want your son to befriend him, or your daughter to emulate him? And would you want either of them to date a guy like The Donald?
Didn't think so.
5
I turn off any news when I start hearing "big" adjectives. "Massive", "Tragic", "Horrific", "Record Breaking", "Earth Shattering", etc... As soon as u hear those trigger words, I know the media is trying to play on my emotions and/or trying to brainwash my opinion to align with theirs. That is not "objective reporting" and is not the function of the news media. Tale out all the adjectives, time me just the facts and I am capable of coming to my own conclusion.
So for me, its BBC and Euronews.
2
I've noticed that news organizations that are often branded has having a left-leaning bias are those that most stridently vet their stories. Conversely, right-leaning news tends to have less editorial control and generally plays looser with truth. Why is that?
6
Anytime I browse radio shows out of interest and hear the word "Jesus" or "faith", I switch immediately. Catholic church was here in the Medieval times to make poverty more palatable and noble for the masses.
2
Most of these social media and “fake news” scams are based on the notion that Americans are ignorant, lazy, and stupid. And we do everything possible to confirm that assessment.
5
There are a couple local papers where I live. One seems pretty normal, but the other has long been owned and edited by a conservative republican political player. This paper, which is delivered to every driveway weekly (whether wanted or not), has the usual stories about school sports and such. But it also becomes the subtle and sometimes not so subtle mouthpiece of its owner. The changing demographics and politics of our area have finally reduced him to selling the paper to a new owner. So far the new owner seems better, but I believe many locals are reading their papers, local and otherwise, with a more critical eye.
So now it seems the strategy of republicans is to stir up a hornet's nest regarding local public schools. And people who would otherwise find common cause become mortal enemies, allowing republicans from our area to return to the statehouse and to Washington next November.
I always wonder why there are no wealthy Democrats investing in similar media influence. Perhaps they are trying to live by a misplaced notion of “fair play” that keeps them from raising their game.
16
Been wondering the same thing.
3
@Wondering Why
Are you kidding? The entire national news media, from all the major networks to the major newspapers (NYT, LAT, Wash Post) all "report" their news through the democratic liberal lens. And let's not even talk about Hollywood and the TV and film industries. Watch any of the CW prime time shows. Try and find the same race, heterosexual relationships. It's the proverbial needle in the haystack.
1
@Wondering Why With liberals dominating the media and creative arts, why haven't they used that power to crush conservatism and the GOP? Seems inexplicable.
2
Alternative Facts may not be facts but too many American Voters prefer to live in an Alternative Reality ! Where...it's all ...Locker Room Talk and where consistent failed policies from an Administration with an 80% turnover rate is ok. I mean how many of us are still believers that Mexico will pay for the Wall?The China Trade War was a success and the skyrocketing Deficit is ok because after all...the economy is doing great? Alternative Facts are not Facts...but they are a good Alternative to those of us who want to live in an Alternative Reality ! Public opinion is slowly leaning toward acknowledging the Truth vs the Alternative Lies....but it's a slow change for sure. Hopefully the public testimonies in front of Congress will finally make more Americans realize that Mueller and Cohen were telling the Truth. Trump is a con who deserves to be Indicted when he leaves office !! That's not Locker Room Talk...that's sworn testimony given under oath!!
6
Republicans/conservatives appear to be almost biologically pre disposed toward the kind of herd mentality that this kind of media manipulation is promoting. Strange that there are few, if any, left-leaning media players using the same tactics.
8
It’s not really strange. It’s just that left leaning people have lives and things to do. Left leaning people find the world an incredibly interesting place with- honestly- too many things to do, to learn about, to experience.
I know this is completely politically incorrect to say but the right seems to like sitting around and saying mean and nasty things about everything? everybody? Hanging around them is soooooo boring. You would have to pay me really really good money to attend a Trump rally or watching big vehicles crash into stuff. I could go on but I won’t.
I get so tired of listening to the right: blah blah blah, life is hard, other people get all the breaks, I can’t read all those words, I don’t care, I hate I hate I hate, I don’t want to do this, why are you working so hard, stop reading that big book, you get all the breaks, blah blah blah.
4
@Robert Hunt
Neuroscientists claim there are structural differences between the brains of liberals and conservatives. But even if true, this may be a chicken-or-egg conundrum.
@Morgan and Robert Hunt
Liberals tried a talk radio network some years ago that was modeled after the Rush Limbaugh, etc., concept. It bombed.
I suspect liberal Americans, like myself, don't especially want to live in an echo chamber like conservatives do. We would rather get credible news from, say, NPR, and think about it for ourselves.
1
An even worse problem is the way local TV news has been manipulating people's fears to up their ratings, and turning us into a nation obsessed with danger and safety, especially with our kids? Let's see an article on that.
5
It's frightening to try to converse with middle age people and seniors (whole families; husband and wife) whose view of the world is so warped by their sources of news (local TV, FOX, print and online exchanges) that it's hard to believe they EVER were properly educated as critical thinkers. P.T. Barnum said there is a sucker born every minute. He was on the money.
9
@me
I stopped being friends with a fellow that now gets all his news from Rush Limbaugh. (He was reading the NY Post, but stopped after they raised the price.) The former friend actually believes that the Democrats are the ones subverting democracy and with the impeachment are trying to steal the last election. Such hogwash isn't worth my time to argue with.
2
So many are incapable of distinguishing, its like they just woke up this morning.
1
I member seeing a product pitched on TV, that guaranteed that you would get 8 glasses a water a day, if you drank water from this particular container.
The mindset that would fall for this scam is why people believe anything they see on a screen.
1
The majority of Americans are still smart enough to figure out the difference between "fake news" and factual content. Also, compare now to the earlier days in America, and even the late 1800's with William Randolph Hearst and Yellow Journalism. The 2018 mid terms show that most Americans are pretty good at separating fact from fiction. Because of tech advances misinformation is easier to distribute now but it is also easier to correct using the same platforms. I am a Democrat but admit that CNN is definitely biased against Trump and other Republicans, especially their talking head shows which have very little news content. The broadcast channels are more even handed. Biased reporting from whatever source is insulting to thinking people.
3
@william matthews I strongly disagree. The millions of people who get all their news from FOX are absolutely not smart enough to understand how much propaganda they are fed daily. There is nothing on the "other side" that's even close to FOX and the damage they do to our country (along with Sinclair) is unmeasurable. Think about it. A lying thug who was a lousy "reality show" star is POTUS. The man is a disaster and we have the situation in this article to thank for his being in office.
14
You’re a “democrat” but only cnn insults your intelligence because they report trumps daily offenses, daily. Not many Democrats I know would claim cnn bias without mentioning the ultimate bias purveyor of all, Fox. CNN doesn’t have to lie to make trump look bad because he does that all by himself. Just as fox will lie endlessly and smear decent Americans to defend trumps treasonous behavior you’ll find an equivalent here in the comments section with people who think they’re going to change someone’s mind by claiming they’re a Democrat outraged by cnn.
3
Money talks and facts walk. It's not like we can't see Trump and his buddies for what they are. It's more of not believing what Hannity and Rush have been peddling for yrs. That would mean everything is a lie. Good news is we have a liar president and fact free TV for him. FOX news and the White House married at the hip. What could go wrong? Didn't America try to reverse everything Lincoln did after the Civil War? Had to impeach Pres Johnson. History repeats right after our first black pres. Sad but true.
2
This differential was largest among Republicans.
More proof, as if it were needed, that on the average, Republicans are less smart or more stupid than the general public.
Perhaps that is why, of the Sunday morning news programs Democrats speak with varied points of view but Republicans stand up all blindly recite the party line, regardless of how stupid it sounds or actually is.
6
People these days are ever more discriminating in what ingredients are in their food and how that food was raised, farmed and processed. Is it "range-free", "organic", "GMO-free", "locally-sourced" and "sustainably-produced"?
Would that we were even half as discriminating what sort of garbage we allow into our minds via the "mystery meat" of synthetically-manufactured far-right propaganda masquerading as "news" on our Facebook news feeds. Or in our purportedly "local" news sources force-feeding us Russian and GOP disinformation like so many hogs feeding at the trough.
Anyone who expects to get accurate and balanced "news" from Facebook (or virtually any "news feeds" provided by the profit-driven algorithms of "content aggregators") is consuming garbage as surely as if they were eating food exclusively scavenged from dumpsters and sewers.
Yes, I'm talking to you (the half of Americans who tell pollsters that they "get all their news from Facebook"). Stop getting your "facts" from digital sewers.
And that includes the sewer that is Fox News.
16
Another reason why Facebook and its ilk should not in any way be involved in distributing "news."
9
every time I read a locally produced news report where I have personal knowledge I find the reporting to be grossly wrong. I have to assume that the balance of the local reporting is equally flawed.
5
A sad state of affairs. Of course biased news reporting is not new in the US or other nations. In the 1800s, political parties basically owned major newspapers to push their agendas. Some of our Founding Fathers used pen names to agitate in the press. Hearst was ruthless. However, today it is easier than ever to get news from several reputable sources at the international, national, and local levels while being mindful that any outlet that draws conclusions in reporting the news rather than relaying facts while outlining opposing viewpoints is spewing opinion, not news. For those that seek to deceive, it isn't their fault. They are following in the traditions of political trench warfare that have existed for generations. It is our fault if we are led down a path by those entities as if small children being led by the hand to our doom. I find great value from getting my news from well known sources from the BBC to the AP, from the Times, Post, and Journal, and from my local papers and a reputable local TV station that is not part of the documented biased problems at Sinclair owned stations. As for the rest of the "news" from unknown sources, I ignore it.
4
Local Fox affiliates, like Sinclair Broadcasting, have been pushing right wing propaganda for decades. Game over. GOP propaganda is too well established and effective. Bring back the fairness doctrine NOW!
7
There's one solution to the problem of fake news that seems to have been overlooked: make smarter news consumers. In general, democracy is a high-information affair to an extent not appreciated by thinkers, even unto the Enlightenment folks who gave us the modern version of it. Raise the level of general knowledge in the population high enough and the problem of fakery will fade away. It's a long-term solution, of course, and will require an unprecedented rebalancing of the distribution of educational resources.
7
@Charles Packer
Spot on, Charles. Voters need to know how to separate facts from propaganda. An educated electorate is the antidote to dictatorships.
The thing is, becoming educated is not easy. Tis much easier to sit and watch Fox News than it is to crack a book on history, economics or philosophy.
6
Hence, Sec. deVos.
1
Aren't there some liberal hackers around who could insert content from The Onion? Would the site consumers be able to tell the difference?
10
In light of all the breast-beating about how polarized and tribal we've become, those who support the RW cant of these rags don't need further evidence and those who don't won't care.
1
We have Sinclair Broadcasting up here in Northwest Michigan. Since Sinclair has taken over the news is terribly biased and the quality has declined significantly. The reporting changed almost overnight after the purchase.
15
Seems the small news organizations are just following in the footsteps of the bigger organizations. It's all about the clicks.
4
The local newspaper in Fresno used to cover a lot of local news about Arts and other local cultural & other events and happenings until it was taken over by a larger national chain. All of this content immediately vanished and the newspaper had much less local content. Its readership also diminished. Now it is not worth subscribing to the local newspaper in addition to New York Times, which offers important local, state, national and international news on a vast variety of subjects.
6
The newspapers in Tennessee's three major cities are part of USAToday, which has cut reporting budgets so drastically that there's little reason to subscribe. This has created an opening for online journalism, some of it good, some pure propaganda. A free and vigorous press is essential to democracy.
20
It takes experience, wisdom and the school of hard knocks to decipher news stories and editorial content. When we see so-called information which appears to be slanted or biased, it is likely slanted or biased. But when you have citizens who get their information from tweets and Facebook etc. you cannot count on them to make informed, intelligent decisions. The U.S. has become fertile ground for demagogues and con artists not to mention a whole new employment field called "influencers."
10
Oh this is RICH.
30 year local broadcaster here, 48 years old, generally moderate Trump voter with many liberal views (for full disclosure).
So any outlet which mixes local content with conservative syndicated content is somehow an "imposter?" No, it's a different product.
The media market is splintering far more than the regular old guard appreciates, and that means the industry of news is in generational flux along with virtually every other industry.
Americans see the ossified hierarchy of news, especially editorial content, which many communities find wanting. Our local newspaper here, NYT's historic sibling, offers an unusual veneer of editorial content from "both sides" (sort of).
So you believe starting a new product, giving it a name and using position-based syndicated content makes it an "imposter?" To say that, you have to make the gravely incorrect assumption that many existing news outlets don't have that product already - from the left.
Not all of us are satisfied living on a diet of modern Associated Press combined with this past generation's offerings including CNN, USA Today and the screaming editorial monoculture of NYT, WaPo, etc.
Your belief that Americans are not discerning of such matters is questionable, however you're quite happy to feed their alleged inability to filter content so long as you're the crowd duping them.
I have a feeling I'm really going to enjoy my fresh NYT subscription. This article is an absolute scream.
2
@Jason Walker Having syndicated or republished content isn't a problem. Not labeling it as such is a problem. I would argue that the press should be transparent about their political leanings and editorial philosophy, and not attempt to disguise such beliefs. The WSJ and to a lesser extent Fox News, are quite obvious about their political leanings and distinguish the difference between news and Op Eds. These local news outlets do not appear to do the same.
27
@Jason Walker
Since the "product" is so normal and innocent, why won't its makers put their names on it? If you have to disguise its origins, it's not innocent. What do you think of pro-Trump Russian-originated ads--are they just another product to you?
22
Not addressed in this article is the deeper level of deception involved in these fake-news sites: namely, how they are given names carefully chosen to sound like the names of traditional newspapers, especially ones that have been driven out of business by the failure of traditional pre-internet journalism.
The end result: zombie news for zombie conservatives, enabling a grotesque parody of the traditional American values that are being systematically destroyed by the Republican mafia.
It is obvious that the Republican right will call any or all dissent “fake”. Facts, verbal statements, that question or prove their deceit are “fake”.
The American public has been continuously, incessantly reminded of “fake news” from every media source as well our president.
The Republican brainwashing of our weak, and entertainment seeking, minded public is beyond even Orwellian comparison. We see “Big President” each morning and throughout the day proclaiming fake news victimhood. The fear of America being “taken over” is behind every Republican political idea. All important political “issues”- abortion, impeachment, justice, the environment, economics, law, civility, are treated ultimately as “fake”.
Fake is a con. Trump and company are extraordinarily talented in the con.
24
"Local news" is the lowest level of coverage of stupid criminals and cat-up-tree stories, combined more recently with cartoonish right-wing propaganda both in their coverage and "editorials" courtesy of outfits such as Sinclair Broadcasting.
11
One word. "Propaganda". What this article is describing.
5
At this point, it begs asking just how stupid are Americans?
It's bad enough the majority of them are reported to get their news from social media platforms like Facebook -- but to turn around and debunk credible news sources for the sake of remaining in the echo chamber of their beliefs is simply puzzling, if not mind-boggling.
Apparently Donald Trump got this much right when proclaiming:" I love the poorly educated."
They're about the only ones who can stand him.
63
@N. Smith
The answer to your question cannot be determined because every time you think you've got it, something new happens like "President Donald Trump" and you have to revise your estimate down yet again.
10
@N. Smith What do you consider a "credible" news source? CNN?
The differential between Democrats and Republicans relates to the lack of diversity of thought among conservatives. The greatest value of diversity is the diversity of thought from people's actual lived experiences. Local news is more likely to reflect the diversity or lack of diversity of the particular community in question.
Conservatives tend to address conflict by elimination or erasure of diversity, which is actually fascism. Absent genocide, the elimination or erasure of diversity involves excluding “others” from participating in the economy and accessing rights, privileges and protections. Often, this occurs by defining others out of existence, such as by stating that being gay, lesbian, bisexual and/or transgender is a choice.
The concept of intersctionality cannot be ignored when it comes to diversity of thought. For example, a black man's life experiences will differ from those of a "white" man. And, a black woman's life experiences will differ from those of a black man. Furthermore, the difference in will likely be greater between a black woman and a white man than between a black man and a white man. If the black woman also happens to be a lesbian, the difference will be even greater. Moreover, if the lesbian black woman also happens to be an Ethiopian Jew, the difference will be even greater. The greater the difference between any given person and a cisgender straight "white" Christian male, the less likely they will be Republican or Libertarian.
8
@Mark Baer I think your assumptions might be a little flawed. I'm not saying that both sides are the same, but cancel culture (which the NYT recently did an article about) is a liberal phenomenon. The idea that conservatives have a different tendency from liberals (and progressives) on trying to address ideological conflict by erasing the views of others from the discussion is a mistake. Dogmatic people on both sides have an extremely low tolerance for their beliefs being questioned.
4
My local newspaper is very thin indeed now that it is owned by a big publisher. A close friend of more than 50 years had to take early retirement over a decade ago to preserve her payout. The paper runs with inexperienced "reporters" who don't even spell check their work. The editor doesn't edit it either. I've started getting my news from local TV, also owned by outsiders. I hope word of mouth or internet will fill in for the rest. A sad situation.
12
@Barbara You nailed it, Barbara, especially for states like South Carolina. Big publishers have bought out local papers across the state and staffed them with high school and college students susceptible to the blandishments of local politicians. And in SC the papers are mostly huge ads for highly profitable hearing aid companies, suspect medical potions and brand new contractors. Of course, sports news get the biggest play. Better K-12 education could mitigate some of this chicanery but in education-starved SC there is a terrible shortage of teachers because the legislature refuses to pay them. a fair wage
9
@Barbara
It's happening everywhere. Local papers which once gave valuable coverage of local politics, school issues and the like have mostly folded; some local cable stations cover some of the issues, but no one covers in depth. They will cover a murder! but who's going to attend local board meetings to keep watch for the public? There are local giveaways which have sprouted up - but necessarily they are more limited, and dependent on ads.
In New York even, there are also precious few places to follow state government issues closely. It's not just a matter of fake news, sometimes it's no news - unless its juicy enough to attract the big media.
2
Most local "newspapers" have been taken over by a few right-wing billionaires, who manufacture and market their own skewed and dishonest version of the "news" to unsuspecting subscribers. They should be made to include a disclaimer on the first page of every issue. "Fake news. Do not rely on what you read here."
10
Seems like a plagiarism test could identify these sites with relative ease. A Poltifact type of site identifying them could be set up. It's good the Times has brought this to our attention.
4
@Jennie
Just knowing the source of material would indeed help, also, knowing that a site’s origin is where it claims to be. Meantime, I ignore sites without clear statements of location, staffing and support.
2
Part of the problem, I suspect, is laziness on the consumers/voters. We can yell "FAKE NEWS" all day long, it does not make a given story fake, or truthful.
It means we need to be responsible consumers. First we need to learn how to read. Admittedly most reading this newspaper have average or above reading levels. People are not well served as our nations people are dropping in the average ability to read an article critically and develop ideas for or against the given idea.
Jon Oliver reported on his program, about Sinclair about two years ago. As I see local changes in our stations I look to see who owns our local news outlet. Same for our local newspaper.
I frequently use Snopes and other fact checking sites. Just because I do not believe Michelle Obama is a transvestite, does not mean I should not find out why such things were being claimed. I did and decided the person promoting that story was seeking her moment of fame. My decision, based on investigation.
I do the same thing regarding all ballot measures, all candidates at all levels. I take this privilege as a responsibility. If you want more outlets be willing to buy newspapers, to help keep you well informed
10
@Margie Steele Agree! There appears to be a growing majority of people who do not know how to read critically or assess an argument. As a post-secondary educator, I have seen a progressive decline in this ability among students.
13
@Margie Steele
I agree, and I would add that people should read widely. Do not get all your news from one source or from sources that are similar. Branch out. For example, read the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal and Reuters, all quality journalism, one leftish, one rightish and one stripped of opinion to give just the facts.
1
@MJ Please, please, please stop parroting this "everybody knows" meme about the NYT, or any other "mainstream" publication being "leftish". They are clearly "establishment" news sources that reflect their own bias, that of the status quo, which means corporate interests above all. This is anything but "leftish". Operating from this position and belief, far right outlets are legitimized, as if they are simply presenting news from a different "side". They are not, they are peddling falsehoods. The Wall Street Journal and NYT publish the same news, for the most part, "real" news, whereas the editorial boards are quite different--the NYT being "establishment" and WSJ having wandered into the far-right swamp in the last few years, after having long been in the strongly conservative camp.
Falling for this disingenuous classification of our media has given the far right entry into "respectable" or believable press, a destructive outcome for our society.
4
Two of the local television stations in Syracuse NY are owned by Sinclair (NBC and CBS affiliates). The personalities are all local folks (the lead weather forecaster goes to the same gym that I do) but the national news that the stations incorporate into the evening news broadcasts are all strangers (none seem to have worked for any of the major networks). Because I am aware that Sinclair has a conservative viewpoint I'm suspicious when the stations run national stories (not so when the stories are local). My main sources of national and world news are NPR, the NY Times, Wall St. Journal (not the editorial page, which seems to exist in a different reality than it's news pages) and the Economist. Syracuse has long been dominated by one or two media organizations (at one time Newhouse owned both newspapers and the NBC TV and radio affiliates) so we have always had to filter the bias. It's just harder now.
24
@David DiRoma Gotta love Wayne Mahar. Used to go watch him broadcast the weather every August at the state fair.
I remember a time when people knew something about the value of and procedure for vetting information to assess its value. Thank you, Internet, for bringing THOSE good old days to an abysmal end.
4
Up here in the area where Professor Nyhan teaches (central/northern NH, VT and Maine), there is a different problem.
With rare exception, local news organizations are severely financially strapped. Without adequate resources, they are "takers" of news feeds with little differentiation or oversight.
On the local front, this means they tend to publish press releases from state and national politicians. No analysis, no contrary views, just force-feeding of politicians' propaganda.
In New Hampshire, the federal delegation is 100% Democrat. So the federal perspective in local news is clearly slanted in this direction.
Compounding this problem, the national news feeds tend to be the standard, left-leaning ones. So the second page ("national news") in, say, the Berlin NH Daily Sun will have some AP story with a fierce anti-Trump slant.
In other words, the problem up here is not sly, disguised Russian interference.
Instead, it's resource-starved local newspapers simply republishing only one side of the story -- the progressive/Dem side.
5
@Stuck on a mountain Reporting what Trump says or does and pointing out misrepresentations and lies is hardly taking an anti-Trump slant.
24
@Stuck on a mountain Not so fast. We have a couple of local stations that have been taken over by Sinclair with the accompanying must-run editorial segments by national-level right-wingers. Also, see the Maine Examiner and other propaganda efforts by the right-wing Maine Heritage Policy Center.
5
The underlying problem at work is the general problem with the Internet: anonymity. It is often difficult to determine who is saying what. So whether it is anonymous handles in Wikipedia, obscure websites, scammers, it all breeds trouble, in this case, anonymous media sources. The solution: transparency.
7
All of those sites are right wing groups and are supporters of the GOP and Trump. There is no equivalency here. The Republicans are the enemies of truth and democracy and will tell any lie to stay in power.
59
“According to researchers at N.Y.U., the fake local news accounts frequently directed readers to GENUINE local news articles about polarizing political and cultural topics.”
I don’t see a problem with this. As long as there is the ability to click through to genuine local news, I don’t care what the agregator’s motives are. The NYT highlights small but factual local news stories from around the country to make ideological points too.
Is the problem that these sites get a larger public to notice patterns they shouldn’t? As long as the base information is factual, it should be fine no matter whose narrative it supports.
2
@Z97 It may be that it’s amplifying cultural wedges — making them appear larger than life or more prevalent. This is a key tool of Russian disinformation campaign to help tear the social fabric of our country.
6
@Z97 It may be that it’s amplifying cultural wedges — making them appear larger than life or more prevalent. This is a key tool of Russian disinformation campaign to help tear the social fabric of our country.
All the news not fit to print ends up on some website. Yes folks, propaganda disguised as news. The reader must have enough street smarts to smell it when he gets close to it. The only way to protect yourself is, actually I don't have a good answer to it, but I would suggest reading from an extremely wide sample from left to right and realizing almost all of it has a slight bias to some having an extreme bias.
6
The FCC requires a disclaimer saying “ the following is a paid political announcement” run before infomercials masquerading as local TV shows. Something like that would work very well for social media platforms.
31
Words fail. When people manufacture "stories" to sway people to your political side, it's time to understand that "your political side" has absolutely nothing good to offer anyone anymore, if ever it did.
George Orwell is probably not a bit surprised, but I'm simply disgusted that it has come to this - up is down, white is black, truth is lie.
48
Under the First Amendment, anyone can run a newspaper or a news site, and say anything they like. The government cannot restrict, license, or prohibit anyone from doing this.
Under the old regime, all the newspapers had a liberal bias. Now, people with different views are starting their own news sites and infrastructures. You say their stories are 'false', they say the stories in the New York Times are 'false'. Well, that's freedom for you - let the people decide.
Yeah, the people are a bunch of dummies who don't know their own interest. Maybe we should get some kind of wise ruler who will straighten them all out - well, good luck with that!
4
@Jonathan
Mmmhmm. Then why do these sites hide what they are and who is supporting them? Scoundrels hide, that's who.
19
@Jonathan Truth has a liberal bias.
5
Do these fake news sites tend to be Russian/Republican- affiliated?
15
news pollution
3
Maybe we should have disclaimers like we have on cigs., ie history has proven that this news program is dangerous to your informational health.
13
Misinformation is about all that is out there. Even this article describes the Sinclair group as having a conservative bias. That is kind of like calling Hurricane Michael a disturbance or describing California as a weenie roast. The Oligarchy has polluted national Media and Clear Channel and Sinclair have taken over the radio. If you want real news, you have to look to The Texas Observer, High Country News, or a few others.
34
@Ken Sayers
Exactly correct. Sinclair does not have a "conservative bias," they disseminate right-wing propaganda and disinformation via allegedly public airwaves.
11
Where is oversight from the FCC?
49
@Keywester No FCC oversight because they are so busy boosting and protecting Trump.
9
@Keywester I believe oversight by the FCC and other pertinent bodies were weakened between the 80s and 90s, and that's part of what allowed for this to happen- especially opinionated punditry on cable news that masquerades as the real news via dressing up their whole broadcast exactly like a news outlet.
17
@Keywester The FCC works with interstate commerce. Most newspapers are not interstate.