"Self-investigation"? We could use more of that . . . know thyself and all. Wait, we're not talking about introspection here, are we?
2
"Fake News" is Pretext. It is worth a summary :
*********************
summary for H.R.5181. View summaries
Shown Here:
Introduced in House (05/10/2016)
Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016
This bill expresses the sense of Congress that:
foreign governments, including the governments of the Russian Federation and China, use disinformation and other propaganda tools to undermine the national security objectives of the United States and key allies and partners;
the U.S. government should develop a comprehensive strategy to counter foreign disinformation and propaganda and assert leadership in developing a fact-based strategic narrative; and
an important element of this strategy should be to promote an independent press in countries that are vulnerable to foreign disinformation.
The Department of State shall establish a Center for Information Analysis and Response to:
lead and coordinate the collection and analysis of information on foreign government information warfare efforts;
establish a framework for the integration of critical data and analysis on foreign propaganda and disinformation efforts into the development of national strategy; and
develop and synchronize government initiatives to expose and counter foreign information operations directed against U.S. national security interests and advance fact-based narratives that support U.S. allies and interests."
*********************
summary for H.R.5181. View summaries
Shown Here:
Introduced in House (05/10/2016)
Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016
This bill expresses the sense of Congress that:
foreign governments, including the governments of the Russian Federation and China, use disinformation and other propaganda tools to undermine the national security objectives of the United States and key allies and partners;
the U.S. government should develop a comprehensive strategy to counter foreign disinformation and propaganda and assert leadership in developing a fact-based strategic narrative; and
an important element of this strategy should be to promote an independent press in countries that are vulnerable to foreign disinformation.
The Department of State shall establish a Center for Information Analysis and Response to:
lead and coordinate the collection and analysis of information on foreign government information warfare efforts;
establish a framework for the integration of critical data and analysis on foreign propaganda and disinformation efforts into the development of national strategy; and
develop and synchronize government initiatives to expose and counter foreign information operations directed against U.S. national security interests and advance fact-based narratives that support U.S. allies and interests."
2
"the democratization of the flow of disinformation."
It takes two to tango. Because a loon seizes and acts on "news" which reinforces his preconceptions based on NOTHING is simply a description of mental illness.
It takes two to tango. Because a loon seizes and acts on "news" which reinforces his preconceptions based on NOTHING is simply a description of mental illness.
This sort of thing has been kind of an American tradition, up to a point. See James P. Chaplin's classic book, _Rumors, Fear and the Madness of Crowds_, for example the story therein, "The Secrets of the Nunnery," about the sack of a Boston convent by an angry crowd in search of children's skulls. But the stories in Chaplin's book pale before Trump's "Only I can save you" circus, which is about to leave its tents behind and move into the White House.
Clowns aside, it is no laughing matter. We must never forget Donald Trump's evil pursuit of the exonerated (on DNA evidence) "Central Park Five," well beyond their exoneration. His behavior on this alone should have been enough for any American who cares about justice, morality and our national security to vote against him.
Clowns aside, it is no laughing matter. We must never forget Donald Trump's evil pursuit of the exonerated (on DNA evidence) "Central Park Five," well beyond their exoneration. His behavior on this alone should have been enough for any American who cares about justice, morality and our national security to vote against him.
1
If it wasn't so expensive to get real news, citizens would be better informed. I grew up in a country where people have free access to all news channels, pay mere cents to buy several newspapers a day and typically read another couple of magazines every month. To do that around here, it would cost me more than $200 per month with much of it due to cable tv monopolies that for some unexplainable reason are allowed to exist in the most capitalist country in the world.
On the other hand Facebook is free. Breitbart trash is free. What we are all getting wrong in this country is that we have fixated on income equality when the real problem is inequality in quality of life. When everything that should be a common good is exploited instead for profit we end up creating monsters that come back to bite us.
On the other hand Facebook is free. Breitbart trash is free. What we are all getting wrong in this country is that we have fixated on income equality when the real problem is inequality in quality of life. When everything that should be a common good is exploited instead for profit we end up creating monsters that come back to bite us.
3
trump did not say he was considering sending birther investigators to Hawaii, in 2011 he said he already had, and "they cannot believe what they're finding".
6
The journalistic chimera of perfection. Perfection is not an option.
Journalistic mistakes reflect reality, in that as hard as they try to get the facts right, sometimes they get them wrong.
Fake news! A lie has the intent to deceive. Intentional falsifications, distortions, quotes out of context, as well as outright lies all intended to deceive. Fake news designed to deceive.
Once beguiled by a lie, facts are disregarded, the truth becomes a phantasmagoria.
Journalistic mistakes reflect reality, in that as hard as they try to get the facts right, sometimes they get them wrong.
Fake news! A lie has the intent to deceive. Intentional falsifications, distortions, quotes out of context, as well as outright lies all intended to deceive. Fake news designed to deceive.
Once beguiled by a lie, facts are disregarded, the truth becomes a phantasmagoria.
1
All media organisations have an agenda. It is important to be aware of that agenda so that when you read what they have to say you can decide for yourself which things are true. The stories that they cover or leave out is also significant, and so having a variety of news sources is helpful in this regard.
But there is a world of difference between a news organisation that more or less follows journalistic norms of reporting and fact-checking and a website run by some anonymous person or group. The key component is credibility, and while organs like the Guardian, BBC, NYT, CNN or FOX may have different degrees of credibility (depending on who is assessing it) they are known and accountable.
To lump these media organisations in with clickbait websites that make up crazy stuff like pizzagate is beyond a false equivalence, it is an abdication of rational thought which can only be explained by poor education leading to lack of ability to distinguish between the two, a nefarious agenda that seeks to eradicate the notion of truth, or the most profound intellectual laziness.
Yes, of course untrue things are reported in the "mainstream" media. But these are the result of bad reporting such as not properly investigating the Bush administrations Iraq WMD claims, or normal reporting of things that were presented as fact by the sources but turned out not to be true. There is a difference between reporting a lie, and creating a site deliberately to spread lies.
But there is a world of difference between a news organisation that more or less follows journalistic norms of reporting and fact-checking and a website run by some anonymous person or group. The key component is credibility, and while organs like the Guardian, BBC, NYT, CNN or FOX may have different degrees of credibility (depending on who is assessing it) they are known and accountable.
To lump these media organisations in with clickbait websites that make up crazy stuff like pizzagate is beyond a false equivalence, it is an abdication of rational thought which can only be explained by poor education leading to lack of ability to distinguish between the two, a nefarious agenda that seeks to eradicate the notion of truth, or the most profound intellectual laziness.
Yes, of course untrue things are reported in the "mainstream" media. But these are the result of bad reporting such as not properly investigating the Bush administrations Iraq WMD claims, or normal reporting of things that were presented as fact by the sources but turned out not to be true. There is a difference between reporting a lie, and creating a site deliberately to spread lies.
1
Edgar Welch was a false flag operation to make real fake news look like fake fake news! Don't you see?!?
This is just the beginning. In a society such as ours, the line between fact and fiction is the press, the courts, Congress, etc etc. In other words, people or institutions we generally know to be fairly truthful or honest. With the ascendancy of Trump, all this is gone. He has legitimized the lie to a point I really can't find in modern times by someone so powerful other than Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, and so on. We watch so much tv and absorb so many ads that our ability to separate entertainment, hucksterism, and reality is now seriously shattered. Ancient Rome had the same problem, and that was 2000 years agon. Go there now and observe the ruins of the once and mighty Forum and its environment. We are rushing to take its place in history.
2
This article perfectly captures the profile of the Grey Lady in this day and age. It's a priceless piece of misinformation about disinformation from the Holy Mother of fake news and warmongering. I'm impressed..
2
Trump is not at all comparable in his self-investigation to Edgar Welch who really did investigate, and with intent to rectify the situation if it turned out to be factual. Trump simply repeats fake news, and when it turns out fake he lies about his support for it, and he never intends to rectify anything.
2
None of this is the least surprising for those who have understood McLuhan.
His fourth "law of media" asserts that the intensive use of any medium will result in precisely the opposite effect the medium intends.
It is long past time to awaken to the enslavement that the internet and its various employments threatens. McLuhan was no Luddite, and he celebrated the positive potential of technology. What he did not do was what most people seem to do today, namely to see any technical progress as intrinsically positive. That is insane: the use of any tool extends our powers for ill at least as much as for good.
We are in the midst of a sobering case in point: no social media, no post-truth world and its President Trump. We are already full-Orwell, and if we don't insist on reclaiming faces in favor of Facebook we are surely doomed.
His fourth "law of media" asserts that the intensive use of any medium will result in precisely the opposite effect the medium intends.
It is long past time to awaken to the enslavement that the internet and its various employments threatens. McLuhan was no Luddite, and he celebrated the positive potential of technology. What he did not do was what most people seem to do today, namely to see any technical progress as intrinsically positive. That is insane: the use of any tool extends our powers for ill at least as much as for good.
We are in the midst of a sobering case in point: no social media, no post-truth world and its President Trump. We are already full-Orwell, and if we don't insist on reclaiming faces in favor of Facebook we are surely doomed.
3
Propaganda and fake news are nothing new. Stephen Colbert may have coined the term truthiness but politicians and the media have long used it to distract and control the masses. The internet is just another tool that has proven effective to distract and mislead.
The only way we can combat this issue is too teach our children critical thinking skills. Don't accept something at face value no matter how plausible it may sound. Go after the facts and make sure your source is backed up by other credible sources.
How many people bothered to fact check the recent election. Not enough, and that's the dilemma.
The only way we can combat this issue is too teach our children critical thinking skills. Don't accept something at face value no matter how plausible it may sound. Go after the facts and make sure your source is backed up by other credible sources.
How many people bothered to fact check the recent election. Not enough, and that's the dilemma.
2
A lot of the NYT articles on this topic ignore context. For example, there are some real epistemological issues here that philosophers have long discussed, but NYT writers seem to ignore them. There is also a long history of precedents, which doesn't only include recent Republican presidents. (For example, look at some of the disinformation and outright lies spread during the presidential election of 1800.) I don't know whether NYT authors think that these points aren't important, aren't interesting, would take up too much space, or whether they just aren't aware of them, but this issue really does have a broader context.
I not familiar with the 'so-called “stovepipes” ' story. Where does it come from?
Once an entire class of 9th graders I taught insisted that head transplants were regularly performed in hospitals. They had seen it on TV....in a sci-fi movie.
These students were susceptible because questioning whether something you hear or read makes sense and fits what else you know about the world is hard work. There are other reasons we fall for false news. One is if you need to believe it (if you need a head transplant....)
" Never argue with a man whose job depends on his not being convinced." H.L. Mencken
Worse, I think, are those that promote falsehoods knowing they are false, but because it promotes there agenda.
These students were susceptible because questioning whether something you hear or read makes sense and fits what else you know about the world is hard work. There are other reasons we fall for false news. One is if you need to believe it (if you need a head transplant....)
" Never argue with a man whose job depends on his not being convinced." H.L. Mencken
Worse, I think, are those that promote falsehoods knowing they are false, but because it promotes there agenda.
2
Vietnam and Watergate were misunderstood by the press, so I learned early that the mainstream press was not enough; they may despise me but Pacifica had to be saved and we did it.
The Freenet was an alternative to the Internet and much safer. We used public libraries to manage personal domains: No one was anonymous.
Sorry kids, but my generation didn't care once we dropped the draft.
The Freenet was an alternative to the Internet and much safer. We used public libraries to manage personal domains: No one was anonymous.
Sorry kids, but my generation didn't care once we dropped the draft.
1
Journalists have created this problem themselves. In this profession there is no hurdle (other than personal integrity) to repeating something that somebody else has written about previously. Literally hundreds of thousand of outlets now live from just scooping up news from elsewhere without naming sources. The economics of intangible goods just doesn't work without giving proper credits.
Besides the financial issues that quality outlet face because everybody can go and 'aggregate' their work, the result is that the reader can't figure out where a story originated because it's so common they can't be traced back to anywhere.
The reader also doesn't know whether or not a story has been fact checked by the outlet.
I think that news sources should explain very clearly what kind of fact-checking they do and point to all sources they have used that can be named.
In the end only legal enforcement will change anything, but to begin with voluntary guidelines would make a big difference.
Besides the financial issues that quality outlet face because everybody can go and 'aggregate' their work, the result is that the reader can't figure out where a story originated because it's so common they can't be traced back to anywhere.
The reader also doesn't know whether or not a story has been fact checked by the outlet.
I think that news sources should explain very clearly what kind of fact-checking they do and point to all sources they have used that can be named.
In the end only legal enforcement will change anything, but to begin with voluntary guidelines would make a big difference.
Johnathan Mahler writes a captivating look into the blurring of truth brought about by today's avalanche of information. Disinformation and bias contaminates content and breeds lies, then scary people scary self-appointed vigilantes go out to do mayhem. Perfect storms of chaos are liming up. Dandy story until Mr. Mahler ruins it with his snotty remarks about Trump as the icon of this new media plague. The story was going dandy until Mahler drifted off message and started in with nasty jabs at Trump's character. Mahler failed because of predetermined biased info. only to contaminate his work and fall on his petard.
Our generation, rather perversely, flatters itself in believing it invented post-truth. It has always existed, and our wordsmiths just came up with its current name. The only thing that's changed is the medium by which it is propagated.
A few random examples from the past century or so:
Hearst newspapers' account of the Maine explosion
The Protocols of the elders of Zion
The Zinoviev letter
McCarthyism
Tonkin Gulf incident accounts
And more recently of course, reports of Iraq's supposed role in 9/11, and of Iraqi WMD which the Times actively narrated.
A few random examples from the past century or so:
Hearst newspapers' account of the Maine explosion
The Protocols of the elders of Zion
The Zinoviev letter
McCarthyism
Tonkin Gulf incident accounts
And more recently of course, reports of Iraq's supposed role in 9/11, and of Iraqi WMD which the Times actively narrated.
6
I used to have a friend about whom it could be said she never let a fact get in the way of an opinion. Used to. If only it could be that easy to dismiss our president elect, a sharp difference I truly fear he cannot see.
6
The establishment media is afraid that it will lose its monopoly on the spread of "information" to the people. After Tonkin, Iraq WMD and Ukraine it should not be surprised. "False Information" is another way of saying "propaganda" whatever its source.
8
If there are no "trusted" sources anymore - for some - what is the actual source of truth? I fear that Trump will be the sole source of "truth" for his followers in this new era.
One crazy thing about the PizzaGate "self-investigator" is you might think his actions have finally proven the accusations false. But go on Twitter and you'll find many still pushing it! - would love to see the NYT dig in to who started the conspiracy, who is pushing it today, and why.
Also I really hope responsible journalists don't forget to ask Trump about his lies (birtherism, black crime/unemployment rates, election fraud, etc) in the future - even at the expense of seats in the White House press room, future interviews, etc. He must be held accountable, even if his "believers" don't see or believe the results.
One crazy thing about the PizzaGate "self-investigator" is you might think his actions have finally proven the accusations false. But go on Twitter and you'll find many still pushing it! - would love to see the NYT dig in to who started the conspiracy, who is pushing it today, and why.
Also I really hope responsible journalists don't forget to ask Trump about his lies (birtherism, black crime/unemployment rates, election fraud, etc) in the future - even at the expense of seats in the White House press room, future interviews, etc. He must be held accountable, even if his "believers" don't see or believe the results.
10
Now, Mr. Trump is saying he knows things about the hacking that no one else knows. I guess its time to ready ourselves for another doozie of a fable. The troubling part to all this madness is the level of acceptance and fuel to investigate everything Mr. Trump says. It is not worth the effort to sift through everything he says to get to the average of 5% truth. When 95% of everything he says is untrue or misleading, why bother to accept anything?
17
The best approach would be to assume that everything our next president says is pure fantasy, without any relation to reality. It may be that occasionally something he says is the truth, but it is risky to think we know when those rare occasions may occur. Isn't that a wonderful way to run the Executive branch of the government of the most powerful nation on earth?
The internet tells us there is still a scientific debate about climate change, while 97% of climate scientists tells us it is man made and happening fast. Denialists of climate change have behind them 35 years of institutional lies from EXXON and other fossil fuel industries. And the Koch Brothers political operations have bought and paid for US Senators who blame it all on sun spots. It's hard to fight such an orchestrated lie with mere scientific fact.
13
"But somewhere along the way, the democratization of the flow of information became the democratization of the flow of disinformation."
With every "new" technological advance in communication human kind has always run the risk of disinformation leading the flow of information. From the first use of the telegraph, through radio then into the era of instant TV from around the world, disinformation has always been in the hands of those with the power to use the technology.
Within the hands of those who "owned" the technology was the power to tell the truth or to lie for their own reasons. Those reasons included both economic and political. Today we have truly democratized the flow of information by putting that power to tell the truth or to lie anonymously in everyone's hands. Perhaps this ability now scares those who once exclusively held that power. "Nobody can see the wizard."
With every "new" technological advance in communication human kind has always run the risk of disinformation leading the flow of information. From the first use of the telegraph, through radio then into the era of instant TV from around the world, disinformation has always been in the hands of those with the power to use the technology.
Within the hands of those who "owned" the technology was the power to tell the truth or to lie for their own reasons. Those reasons included both economic and political. Today we have truly democratized the flow of information by putting that power to tell the truth or to lie anonymously in everyone's hands. Perhaps this ability now scares those who once exclusively held that power. "Nobody can see the wizard."
3
"Preserving the flexibility to pick and choose facts carries obvious strategic benefits."
Indeed it does for both side of any argument. It is only when the "agenda" of the particular speaker or media owner or political party decides on which facts will be used does the concept of truth become more a concept of "our" truth. "Our" truth is also bolstered not only by the cherry picking of certain "facts" but by the omission of those other "facts" that might force the focus away from the agenda. During the past campaign both sides were guilty of repeatedly misusing this flexibility.
Indeed it does for both side of any argument. It is only when the "agenda" of the particular speaker or media owner or political party decides on which facts will be used does the concept of truth become more a concept of "our" truth. "Our" truth is also bolstered not only by the cherry picking of certain "facts" but by the omission of those other "facts" that might force the focus away from the agenda. During the past campaign both sides were guilty of repeatedly misusing this flexibility.
2
I can't help but think that Mr. Welch did us a favor in that his actions created a public conversation about this issue. It gave the public something physical and tangible to actually see in terms of the real world effects of "media-brainwashing".
Thank goodness it didn't end in tragedy. I really do feel that this incident could have been much worse.
Thank goodness it didn't end in tragedy. I really do feel that this incident could have been much worse.
12
Yeah, it's like the Sarandon approach to the election. Not such a bad thing to elect Trump, then we'll mobilize but good.
The NYTimes jumped on board the story of the Duke Lacrosse Players, publishing stuff that became obviously false. Yet, the newspaper didn't give up or back off even when the accuser was made out to be a liar, and the Rolling Stone reporter disgraced. So, the NYTimes has little credibility on this issue. The NYTime can hardly complain about embracing unproven claims. That it would do so demonstrates its hubris. Shameful!
10
Bad reporting, based on failing to properly vet a source's claims or talk to the right people (but nonetheless doing extensive legwork and genuine investigation, for a period of months), is a far cry from the conspiracy-crafting behind loony theories like Pizzagate. The former is fundamentally based on the search for truth and a desire to present the facts, even if sometimes a reporter loses their way; the latter is a bottomless rabbit hole of innuendo and speculation that neither seeks nor recognizes evidence and serves only to confirm the biases and beliefs of its participants. If you really can't see the difference, there's nothing the NY Times can do to change your mind.
1
Yes, the NYT sometimes has its own problems with credibility, but you really need to check your facts before accusing others of distorting them. The Rolling Stone reporter issue was completely separate from the Duke lacrosse issue; it concerned UVA, an entirely different university, and took place about eight years later.
1
Oh come on. Like many other media outlets, the Times initially reported the story as it initially came out, which later was proven to be untrue. Then the Times (like others) reported that the alleged "victim" had been lying. This was duly reported in the paper. If your memory has erased that part of things, as Casey used to say, "You could look it up."
1
This will be a very interesting time for America's historians and how they will look back at this period as when lies and misinformation ran the most powerful nation in the world by a guy who was elected president because he promised his True Believers he would make them feel good about themselves.
3
There are now armies of Trump-loving trolls on nearly every comment forum insisting there is no proof of Russian hacks.
The media in this country has let us down, beginning with the hours and hours of coverage of Trumps racist hate rallies. I am no longer a patriotic American. I love my city and my state, but my country is pathetic.
The media in this country has let us down, beginning with the hours and hours of coverage of Trumps racist hate rallies. I am no longer a patriotic American. I love my city and my state, but my country is pathetic.
4
I wonder whether there's a statute of limitations on non-disclosure of the identity of anonymous sources. Can Ron Suskind be induced to tell us who it was in the Bush administration who disparaged "the reality-based community?" Is this person serving in Trump's transition team or cabinet?
3
Right now, at the top of my link to the NYTimes at the top of the top stories, is an article about the president elect talking to reporters on New Year's Eve claiming he knows "things" no one else knows regarding the Russian hacking and all will be revealed on Tuesday or Wednesday.
Really? Haven't we all been here before. All will be revealed. All will be explained. For a president who proclaims he doesn't use the internet, he is remarkably self informed.
Anyone want to take a guess what will be revealed? The 400 pound guy sitting on a bed? Maybe his new friend Putin has whispered in his ear? Or Rush Limbaugh has waded into the fray with some new conspiracy theory?
Somewhere along the line our president elect never developed the skills to discern fact from fiction. And unfortunately, a large part of the country also seems to have that same problem.
Now the country will be waiting with bated breath for Tuesday or Wednesday.
Really? Haven't we all been here before. All will be revealed. All will be explained. For a president who proclaims he doesn't use the internet, he is remarkably self informed.
Anyone want to take a guess what will be revealed? The 400 pound guy sitting on a bed? Maybe his new friend Putin has whispered in his ear? Or Rush Limbaugh has waded into the fray with some new conspiracy theory?
Somewhere along the line our president elect never developed the skills to discern fact from fiction. And unfortunately, a large part of the country also seems to have that same problem.
Now the country will be waiting with bated breath for Tuesday or Wednesday.
63
it was you, he will say, KL. get ready for it. that is as likely as anything else.
It's doubtful that Trump "cannot discern fact from fiction". Rather, he knows what is to his advantage in distracting media, and it's truth or falsity is not a consideration.
1
The internet has devolved into the largest rumor mill in humankind's history. That descent into chaos parallels the explosive growth in social media by older users over the last decade. These naive "immigrants" in the new tech world have been like children playing with matches.
11
Back in the early 90's I asked a friend who worked at Hewitt Packard to explain to me how to get on the internet. His reply, which I've never forgotten was, " if you have to ask you don't belong on the internet."
Soon after that conversation the internet was opened to us "immigrants".
Quite frankly I resent your implication that older "immigrants" are responsible for a lot of fake news.
We went to school at a time when we were taught to separate fact from fiction. To question and to research and to validate where our information was coming from.
It is very sad that the internet is becoming the unsubstantiated source for news. We must all learn to question some of the incredible bits of news that is not only spouted on the internet but also on mainstream television media. Sad as it is, just because the president elect tweets it doesn't mean it is true.
Soon after that conversation the internet was opened to us "immigrants".
Quite frankly I resent your implication that older "immigrants" are responsible for a lot of fake news.
We went to school at a time when we were taught to separate fact from fiction. To question and to research and to validate where our information was coming from.
It is very sad that the internet is becoming the unsubstantiated source for news. We must all learn to question some of the incredible bits of news that is not only spouted on the internet but also on mainstream television media. Sad as it is, just because the president elect tweets it doesn't mean it is true.
5
KL: For the record, I am a baby boomer. Still, I think it is my generation and those older who are most responsible for spreading fake news. The evidence backs that conclusion.
Look at the demographic chart at the link below from a December 2016 Pew Study. The study shows that 58% of Americans 65+ believe fake news is a problem. Conversely, 67% of those 18-29 think fake news is a problem. Clearly, skepticism about what people see on the web decreases with age.
You’re right about the generational differences in education. But the fact is, we older Americans were not really taught to think for ourselves. The main message of my schooling in the 1950s-1960s was to believe and obey the word of institutions of authority.
That's why many older people do not question information on websites -- especially when it agrees with their preconceived opinions. The lack of tech savvy among older Americans makes them unaware of how easy it is to create a website and post outright lies.
That combination of belief in authority and lack of technical sophistication is the reason many older Americans are indeed children playing with matches on the internet.
Pew Study on Fake News:
http://www.journalism.org/2016/12/15/many-americans-believe-fake-news-is...
Look at the demographic chart at the link below from a December 2016 Pew Study. The study shows that 58% of Americans 65+ believe fake news is a problem. Conversely, 67% of those 18-29 think fake news is a problem. Clearly, skepticism about what people see on the web decreases with age.
You’re right about the generational differences in education. But the fact is, we older Americans were not really taught to think for ourselves. The main message of my schooling in the 1950s-1960s was to believe and obey the word of institutions of authority.
That's why many older people do not question information on websites -- especially when it agrees with their preconceived opinions. The lack of tech savvy among older Americans makes them unaware of how easy it is to create a website and post outright lies.
That combination of belief in authority and lack of technical sophistication is the reason many older Americans are indeed children playing with matches on the internet.
Pew Study on Fake News:
http://www.journalism.org/2016/12/15/many-americans-believe-fake-news-is...
5
I just took the time to read the Pew article suggested below. I'm also a baby boomer and grew up in the 60's.
I do agree that fake news is a huge problem and getting larger.
But I guess a couple of good English teachers and a few journalism classes in college taught me to question sources.
I've gone out of my way to debunk a few pretty far out stories I've been told by a few acquaintances. But the majority of people I hang out with are very saavy about what they hear and read in the media.
If you are looking to the government to help halt fake news, the man who was just elected president is going out of his way to spread it. So much for the buck stops here.
I do agree that fake news is a huge problem and getting larger.
But I guess a couple of good English teachers and a few journalism classes in college taught me to question sources.
I've gone out of my way to debunk a few pretty far out stories I've been told by a few acquaintances. But the majority of people I hang out with are very saavy about what they hear and read in the media.
If you are looking to the government to help halt fake news, the man who was just elected president is going out of his way to spread it. So much for the buck stops here.
Let's not let a new lie get started. Mahler says that Trump "considered" sending investigators to Hawaii. No. He told the world that he had sent investigators to Hawaii and "they cannot believe what they are finding". (see CNN report on April 7th) But Trump never revealed what they found. Trump was never confronted by the media about this assertion in the campaign. Mr. Mahler, please don't let this get minimized by saying "he considered". He lies about the world he does not know and he lies about what he does know.
78
The soon to be Liar in Chief and Pence the Denier in Chief
7
We are all responsible for challenging "lies" and "manipulation". We also have to rally behind real journalism that studies to discern the truth. I am sick of hearing people complain about the media. Their generalized negative statements promote people seeking alternate unreliable sources.
Facebook is FINALLY taking some steps to be responsible citizens...now for Utube. I can no longer stand to watch news segments on Utube because they automatically upload videos from crazy sources like RT (Russian Television) that has thousands of subscribers.
Facebook is FINALLY taking some steps to be responsible citizens...now for Utube. I can no longer stand to watch news segments on Utube because they automatically upload videos from crazy sources like RT (Russian Television) that has thousands of subscribers.
6
I just wish people stop using all these Orwellian words like 'self-investigation' and 'post truth' when they really mean "mass manipulation" and "lies."
53
A voice from the past occurs to me: Walt Kelly and his "Pogo" strip. His famous line:
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
27
..and we is screwed!
I have been sitting here for five minutes trying to express what I am feeling. Everyone below has parsed the issue in some detail, which is fine, but my perspective is from that of high school and college journalist and a finance director concerned with writing concise, understandable reports to a city council. The "democratization of disinformation" on the internet is no different than what has occurred on television since its inception. Witness TV's mishmash of reality shows, with small islands of quality productions here and there.
So why would politics not be the same, especially given a rather sizable frustrated populace that sees their own lot stagnating.
As one comment below asks: Now what? I would love to be a part of a group that takes on this challenge
So why would politics not be the same, especially given a rather sizable frustrated populace that sees their own lot stagnating.
As one comment below asks: Now what? I would love to be a part of a group that takes on this challenge
11
Search engine choice can affect your search. Google displays it's advertisers and after a couple of queries it creates a bubble for your search so you get nothing new. Duck Duck Go may not be as good in terms of the volume it searches but it is more neutral by far, especially for product searches.
Search for info on authors and sources for articles and use fact checkers & Snopes. The more you respond emotionally to the article the more you should check on it.
Other helpful suggestions? This article is political and does not encourage independent investigation by readers. Self investigation skill is a necessity because even good sources dedicated to investigative reporting aren't infallible and what you are interested in may not get much coverage.