Credible News Sources

[MaxPC]

NYT had a similar story yesterday where they tracked down a fake news creator in Georgia. Quite interesting.

Indeed: especially since this fake newsman is located in the nation of Georgia in Eurasia. The push to give internet capable computers to everyone a decade ago has resulted in a tsunami of both real and fake news. Like products, we have to develop the capacity to discern the reliable from the unreliable. There's no solid way to do this except through due diligence.

One should also recognize that a major failure of the larger traditional news outlets is inaccurate analysis of the facts that they report. Depending which facts are highlighted, the narrative shifts. I'd say a failure to report relevant facts bad journalism just as much as publishing fake facts.

As Christians, we profess to hold a high esteem for the truth. To me, a part of that is making a reasonable effort to verify facts and sources before repeating them.

Deadlines for stories enable laziness too. Fact checking takes time. In the rush to publish a story before their competitors, news outlets often devolve to what was once called "yellow journalism".
It's an old term and the ethical failures of news organizations is an old story. Before the manipulation of the media by the Clintons in 1992, there was William Randolph Hearst who used his newspaper empire from 1887-1951 to bring down politicians on both sides, conservatives and liberals. It was Hearst's reputation that personally taught me to use the proverbial grain of salt vis a vis news sources and do my own research.

[Bootstrap]

Buzzfeed suggests a more nuanced view than NPR presents. An analysis by Craig Silverman found fake news to be a problem on both sides of the political spectrum. He concluded that the problem was worse on the right than on the left, but that both sides had an appetite for it.

Really good report. Here's the most important part: If you want to attract a following, throw away factual reporting and play to people's partisan bias, telling them what they want to hear.

The rapid growth of these pages combines with BuzzFeed News’ findings to suggest a troubling conclusion: The best way to attract and grow an audience for political content on the world’s biggest social network is to eschew factual reporting and instead play to partisan biases using false or misleading information that simply tells people what they want to hear. This approach has precursors in partisan print and television media, but has gained a new scale of distribution on Facebook. And while it isn’t a solely American phenomenon — the British Labour party found powerful support from a similar voice — these pages are central to understanding a profoundly polarized moment in American life.

Here's a graph that shows what kind of stories get shared and commented on - it's not the stories that are mostly true, it's the ones that are mostly false or have no factual content.

The nature of the falsehoods is important to note. They often take the form of claims and accusations against people, companies, police, movements such as Black Lives Matter, Muslims, or “liberals” or “conservatives” as a whole. They drive division and polarization. And in doing so, they generate massive Facebook engagement that brings more and more people to these pages and their websites and into the echo chamber of hyperpartisan media and beliefs.

So the stories that are partisan hit jobs on "them" are least likely to be true. We should be especially careful to check our facts on this kind of story.

A recent feature in the New York Times Magazine reported on the growth and influence of these pages, saying they “have begun to create and refine a new approach to political news: cherry-picking and reconstituting the most effective tactics and tropes from activism, advocacy and journalism into a potent new mixture.”

Many of us get our "facts" primarily from this kind of site.

[Bootstrap]

Here's the short version of that last post. If you want a larger, more loyal audience, here's what you do:

• Don't bother with the facts - "fact free" is even better than "mostly false" if you want an audience
• Make up something really emotionally compelling to draw people in
• Attack someone along partisan lines, playing to our uglier emotions, stirring up division and polarization - that gets you loyal readers

Of course, each of those is completely against what we stand for as Christians. Yet we Christians often sign up as loyal and gullible foot soldiers in the culture wars.

As Christians, we profess to hold a high esteem for the truth. To me, a part of that is making a reasonable effort to verify facts and sources before repeating them.

Amen.

One should also recognize that a major failure of the larger traditional news outlets is inaccurate analysis of the facts that they report. Depending which facts are highlighted, the narrative shifts. I'd call a failure to report relevant facts bad journalism just as much as publishing fake facts.

That's true - and you generally need to look at more than one news source to get all the facts. Better yet, wait a month or so and read a more balanced set of facts once the truth has settled some. Or take Max's approach: "not my circus, not my monkeys". We don't have to be experts on every claim seen on the Internet. Unless people insist on discussing them here.

[Robert]

Without trying to get too far off of credible news sources, They feed us what we want. If we did not buy it, it would die out, not get bigger.

The challenge is with the politicians and politics we have now also chosen, most of the factless stories are very believable. Again, we as a populous have done this, yet we always want to blame someone else for the ills of the world. I remember the pet rock. It only sold because someone bought it. Yes, paid money for a rock they could pick up in their yard.

If we look back in history, we will see this is not a new phenomenon. One example is when the press keep LBJ's polio and later sickness from everyone. Eleanor was running things and they knew, but kept it quiet. Ceasar paid proclaimors to stand in the public forms and proclaim his great feats. The list is endless.

We, like sheep, have gone astray ...

[Jazman]

This is sobering and sheds light on the ills of both partisan sides... NPR Reporter Tracked Down a Fake News Creator in the Suburbs Here's What They Learned
(I will admit to considering leaving the NPR part of that title out... because some of you see that and immediately write off their journalism...) Please look past that and read the article. I think it gives some insight into discerning bad, lying news sources.

NYT had a similar story yesterday where they tracked down a fake news creator in Georgia. Quite interesting.

And here's a part that will probably irritate a few of you...and you probably won't believe it... (But this is not the first source I've seen discussing this point: Statistically and via cold hard data facts (like the number of shares, views, etc that a machine/computer tabulates) - the right-leaning side of the political spectrum, especially recently, accepts and spreads completely made-up "news" stories more easily than other demographics)

When we were coming up with headlines it’s always kind of about the red meat. Trump really got into the red meat. He knew who his base was. He knew how to feed them a constant diet of this red meat.

We’ve tried to do similar things to liberals. It just has never worked, it never takes off. You’ll get debunked within the first two comments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out.

Buzzfeed suggests a more nuanced view than NPR presents. An analysis by Craig Silverman found fake news to be a problem on both sides of the political spectrum. He concluded that the problem was worse on the right than on the left, but that both sides had an appetite for it.
One should also recognize that a major failure of the larger traditional news outlets is inaccurate analysis of the facts that they report. Depending which facts are highlighted, the narrative shifts. I'd say a failure to report relevant facts bad journalism just as much as publishing fake facts.
As Christians, we profess to hold a high esteem for the truth. To me, a part of that is making a reasonable effort to verify facts and sources before repeating them.

Thanks for sharing this ken_s. It balances out my post which is slanted too hard one way. I have no problem believing Craig Silverman's conclusions. It underscores the researching vigilance we'll all need to do more of in the future. Thanks again.

[temporal1]

Robert:
Without trying to get too far off of credible news sources,
They feed us what we want. If we did not buy it, it would die out, not get bigger.

Correct. For-profit news industry.
That's why i believe they should be held accountable to other industry standards, like, Truth-in-Advertising, and, Anti-Trust laws.

Funny, i get the impression (in report comments, by non-professionals) that many make no distinction between what "Joe-Blow says" and what should be expected from paid professional journalists!
this confounds me. i believe it to be an education fail.
i suppose, it results from continual "talk radio," "talk tv," etc., wherein lots of personal opinions and speculation are aired .. blurring lines between professionals and the general public. "the industry" has taken advantage, thus, they've seriously lost credibility.

Robert:
The challenge is with the politicians and politics we have now also chosen, most of the factless stories are very believable. Again, we as a populous have done this, yet we always want to blame someone else for the ills of the world.

I remember the pet rock. It only sold because someone bought it. Yes, paid money for a rock they could pick up in their yard.

agreed, to an extent. public schools were meant to raise the common denominator of understanding, both of laypeople and consumers, and, in preparing students to become professionals in the working world.

appearances are, standards have lowered.
more have diplomas and degrees, but the value of those papers is not what it once was.

Robert:
If we look back in history, we will see this is not a new phenomenon.

One example is when the press keep [kept] LBJ's [FDR's] polio and later sickness from everyone.
Eleanor was running things and they knew, but kept it quiet.

Ceasar [Caesar] paid proclaimors to stand in the public forms and proclaim his great feats.
The list is endless.

We, like sheep, have gone astray ...

yes. we continue to stray, as ever before.

i recall lessons in reading local newspapers for accuracy even in elementary school.
there were so many errors, we learned from young years to read with a generous grain of salt!
if these simple local stories could get so "hashed," just imagine what could happen to important, complex reports!

[Dan Z]

One more proof that, in the end, people are more emotive than rational

[Josh]

temporal1, are you a paid subscriber to Mennonite World Review (which is not a for-profit news source)?

If none of us are willing to pay for good, balanced news from an Anabaptist perspective then perhaps we should stop complaining about how bad everyone else is and recognise that the problem is with ourselves.

[Josh]

Correct. For-profit news industry.
That's why i believe they should be held accountable to other industry standards, like, Truth-in-Advertising, and, Anti-Trust laws.

Temporal1, do you really want the government regulating news? Don't you think we should have freedom of speech?

What if the government regulated MennoNet? Or even your own posts? What if Truth in Advertising laws applied to each post we make?

[temporal1]

thank you anyway, i'll wait for a response from Robert, if he chooses.