FAKE NEWS? You haven't seen the real thing yet.

[photonrider]

​

There was a time we believed the news.
The news was given to us by accredited sources - Bulletins, wanted notices, epidemic warnings pinned to public notice boards. Newspapers that could be taken to court if they reported lies. Or radio that was intently listened to because they told us the truth about war.
And then a radio play changed that.
At first they said there was panic. Many years later it was changed into a myth.
The flip-flop continues.
So we learned not to take things immediately at face value - that maybe it was not the real thing.
We learned to check, and double check before we loaded the car and fled to the forest.

But - as technology sped up to disseminate information faster, wider, loaded with subjective bias, and motivated by everything from getting attention for advertising to propagating individual ideologies, the truth became increasingly harder to unearth. Sometimes there was no truth at all - it was all fake. 'Sources' were protected. Pictures were tweaked. Movies made illusions come to life. Credibility rested on whether what everybody believed was true was true.
Sometimes, even the science that we firmly believed in was dashed from our lips by a new piece of science - the sun didn't revolve around the earth after all, the universe wasn't staying in one place, and waves turned into particles.

We've come to the point now where almost anybody can make make a video of whatever, self-publish a book, print their own newspaper or start up their own radio station.

Even worse - we have the technology to pass the fraud around so quickly, so widely, adding our own subjective bias to it that Norman Rockwell's famous painting of the gossips has a new spin on the truth.

Which brings us to the question - What should we believe in? Why?
Most people resist the thought that what they firmly believe in could be a lie, fiction, a fairy-tale - whether religion, politics . . . or science.
And brothers and sisters kill each other over these 'truths'.
Can we change this? How?
Or is the situation only getting worse - a path we've created ourselves - focused firmly towards mutual self-destruction? Can we stop it? When?
Is there something we can do? What?

There is no doubt that the future is in our hands - or are we fooling ourselves again? Is it in someone else's hands? Whose?

Check this:

"There is new technology about to go on the market that will allow you to create audio sound bites (sic) of anyone, saying anything you want, and to the naked ear it is indistinguishable from the real thing. Adobe plans to release this software, and the previews are astounding. Allegedly intended to assist in dubbing videos, the program allows you to record someone’s voice—Hillary Clinton’s, for example—and then reuse their vocal signature to repeat any phrase, like “I ran a child sex trafficking (sic) ring.”

At the same time, there is emerging video technology that enables you to do the same thing with a person’s image. It samples numerous pictures of someone, maps their face and allows you to create video of them saying or doing anything.

The possibilities for abuse are limitless. Imagine what would happen to the New York Stock Exchange if a telephone recording emerged of the Fed Chair Janet Yellen stating Washington was about to default on its debt. How would North Korea react to video of an American general discussing a pending pre-emptive attack on Pyongyang?"

Source: http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/polit...-seen-nothing-yet/ar-AApJaFl?ocid=mailsignout

Obviously, if I have cited a 'source' it's real news, right?

It's time to go to war. The war against fake news.
Drafting begins here.
Join up.

What shall we start with?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Breitbart or Daily Stormer? Some days there's only a fine line between the two.

 

[TheCracker]

What's the difference between 'fake news' and 'point-of-view' - most newspapers and even news channels support a particular political ideology. They report on a happening, but spin it to suit their agenda. Is fake news more dangerous then political or ideological slant?

 

[photonrider]

Breitbart or Daily Stormer? Some days there's only a fine line between the two.

Have they been consistently proven as purveyors of fake news? Have we proof of this?
Bring it here. Display the examples.
Once fully proven that they are merchants of fake news, we will brand them as such, destroy their credibility, ignore their sites and put them out of business.

@TheCracker:

"What's the difference between 'fake news' and 'point-of-view' ?
Don't you know? Can't you tell?
That's a most dangerous shortcoming. That's what leads to brainwashing.

But we will discuss that, too, when evidence of fake news turns up disguised as point of view.

Here's fake news I'm working on - with surprising results.
The evidence mounts. Which 'Holy Book' has the word 'sword' mentioned so many times I lose count and have to start over again?
And which one touted to have it mentioned many times has it not mentioned even once?

*goes back to counting.

 

[Obelisk]

Daily Stormer

A hacktivist by the name of Jester has been going after these guys for the past week and a half with quite a bit of success. Last I heard, he got them to switch to a Russian IP.

 

[Dotini]

The news has always been fake. I remember Viet Nam, and a lot of other fake news as well. Probably, with so many platforms and channels, the news is potentially less fake now than ever before - if you can just sort through the mess!

 

[TenEightyOne]

A hacktivist by the name of Jester has been going after these guys for the past week and a half with quite a bit of success. Last I heard, he got them to switch to a Russian IP.

GoDaddy suspended their hosting and CloudFlare withdrew their services. The last I head (a few days ago, mind) they'd sunk into darknet.

Once fully proven that they are merchants of fake news, we will brand them as such, destroy their credibility, ignore their sites and put them out of business.

I don't want to ignore them, I want to read them!

 

[Joey D]

I've grown tired of "Fake News" accusations. It seems like anytime a story comes out now that someone doesn't agree with it's automatically fake news. If you disagree with it, that's fine, but to say it's fake when really it challenges your preconceived notions isn't really the way to go about refuting it.

Plus, most mainstream media is infotainment so it's going to have a spin on it to cater to its viewers and ultimately make more money.

 

[photonrider]

GoDaddy suspended their hosting and CloudFlare withdrew their services. The last I head (a few days ago, mind) they'd sunk into dark net.

Please elaborate on this. What particular sentences are actually fake?
What we're looking for here are actual lies.

I don't want to ignore them, I want to read them!

Preserve your sanity, 1081. Why would you lick a popsicle laced with arsenic? In the end it's bad for you. Knowledge (not lies) is power.
So, alright - fiction can be entertaining - but hey, in that case make up your own fiction. Or find some fiction that teaches. 1984. Jane Eyre. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
Time is life - my advise is to make wise use of it. Real knowledge can be put to good use - and will help make the right connections in the brain you use to perceive reality.
Keep feeding yourself circus clowns and after awhile you will think nothing of doing cartwheels over a cliff.

____________________

To go on . . . a caveat:
Most people take the term 'fake news' as something to do with the mainstream media.
Not necessarily. A wedding invitation is news. Someone calling you up and saying they're pregnant is news.
The 'one that got away' is the one that's possibly 'fake news'.

Journalism today is redundant. Get a smartphone and go shoot cops beating up a homeless person, upload it to video, and watch it go viral - thats news.
We are now Big Brother.

As you can imagine, this is now a most dangerous situation for authoritarians - and why some countries muzzle their citizens.
The downside?
Fake news. Stuff is easy to create and disseminate. That's our big problem now.

Even mainstream media accepts the fact of fake news (but may call them 'stories' instead )

But these same people may very subtly colour your mind with sentences that are lies. People who are supposed to be wordsmiths, who are supposed to create the perfect spells:

​

No, no. The word is not 'muzzle', the word should be 'prevent.' That's what the Goldwater Rule is all about. 'Muzzle' would be more suitable in North Vietnam.

Having the power to influence thought should not give the newspapers carte blanche to lie:

​

They go on to bolster this with:
​

"But madness of that sort was far from uncommon in Europe’s royal families, not least because of the inbreeding favoured by their convention that members of a royal family could not marry beneath their station. As H.C. Erik Midelfort explains in his entertaining 1996 monograph Mad Princes of Renaissance Germany, in 16th-century Germany nearly 30 dukes, landgraves and counts were regarded by their courts and ministers as mad enough to require medical attention or removal from office. But what exactly was meant by “mad”? Midelfort explains that advisers and family members spoke of “weakness, folly, debility, and the condition of not being right,” or sometimes “furor, or melancholy, or sickness” when they encountered princes who seemed to be mentally unsuited to rule. The notion of clinical insanity or certifiable madness is one that only became current in the 19th century."

​

My advice to the Toronto Star is that they should sell the business and buy some hot dog vending carts - do a better service to the hoi polloi in downtown Toronto. At least serve the workers who are battling the opioid crises there. Don't waste my time if I am to take you literally.

________


The following is better reporting about the situation that's riffling through the newspapers right now:

​

_________________________

Another piece of fakery that is abundantly spread is that the Qu'ran spreads the word of the 'sword'. Still trying to find the word 'sword' in the Qu'ran. Maybe they have another word for it in Arabic that translates in some other way in English? 'Pointy thing'? 'Sharp object'?
But the Christian Bible I find has 426 words spelled as 'sword'. My Comprehensive Concordance of the New World Translation shows me that:

​

Let alone other words like 'swords' or 'sword-stroke', etc.
This is not to say I'm promoting the Qu'ran or demeaning the Bible. They are both influential works.
Just give me the facts. Please and Thank You.
I was taught that only the truth exists. Lies eventually vaporize.

H.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Preserve your sanity, 1081. Why would you lick a popsicle laced with arsenic? In the end it's bad for you. Knowledge (not lies) is power.
So, alright - fiction can be entertaining - but hey, in that case make up your own fiction. Or find some fiction that teaches. 1984. Jane Eyre. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

I like to read them because I believe them to be fake... yet their existence and ongoing popularity (to some) is a fact. I'm fascinated about why this is, why their agenda exists and what we can learn from it when trying to make things better.

I don't suggest that anybody else should read them of course, that would just be cruel

I'll find some particular examples for you later, I've got a slipped disc and it's strong medication time!

 

[homeforsummer]

I feel like I'm witnessing @photonrider's slow descent into insanity reading this thread.

It's fairly straightforward to deal with "fake news": One, try and find other reports of the same story to see whether it's covered differently by different outlets - and in which ways it differs. If all outlets are covering the same story in a relatively similar way, chances are the story is fairly accurate (irrespective of whether you disagree with it - see point three).

Two, check sources - see if the outlet has a history of either inaccuracy or blatant lies. The internet has made it easy to lie but it's also made it hard to hide from lies - there are plenty of websites out there that list how accurate various sites have been on various news stories. If the site you're sourcing from is constantly picked up for its inaccuracies, it's probably time to find another outlet to read.

Three, don't automatically dismiss something just because you disagree with the way the story is presented. Or vice-versa, automatically agree with it because it suits your own stance on something. News isn't necessarily inaccurate just because it's unsavoury, and it isn't necessarily accurate just because it makes you feel good.

And no, journalism isn't redundant, and that's unchanged however many people have camera phones. The proper stuff is no less accurate than it ever was - it's just there's more noise and static these days to wade through. Where once there might have been a report on an event, now you have the report, but it's hidden away under a dozen op-ed pieces, multiplied by a thousand outlets that never used to exist.

The only redundancy comes when people choose to only believe the stories that suit them personally. It's human nature to choose something that makes you feel good over something that's correct, but part of being an adult is learning and accepting that not everything you believe to be true or untrue actually is.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

I feel like I'm witnessing @photonrider's slow descent into insanity reading this thread.

It's fairly straightforward to deal with "fake news": One, try and find other reports of the same story to see whether it's covered differently by different outlets - and in which ways it differs. If all outlets are covering the same story in a relatively similar way, chances are the story is fairly accurate (irrespective of whether you disagree with it - see point three).

Two, check sources - see if the outlet has a history of either inaccuracy or blatant lies. The internet has made it easy to lie but it's also made it hard to hide from lies - there are plenty of websites out there that list how accurate various sites have been on various news stories. If the site you're sourcing from is constantly picked up for its inaccuracies, it's probably time to find another outlet to read.

Three, don't automatically dismiss something just because you disagree with the way the story is presented. Or vice-versa, automatically agree with it because it suits your own stance on something. News isn't necessarily inaccurate just because it's unsavoury, and it isn't necessarily accurate just because it makes you feel good.

And no, journalism isn't redundant, and that's unchanged however many people have camera phones. The proper stuff is no less accurate than it ever was - it's just there's more noise and static these days to wade through. Where once there might have been a report on an event, now you have the report, but it's hidden away under a dozen op-ed pieces, multiplied by a thousand outlets that never used to exist.

The only redundancy comes when people choose to only believe the stories that suit them personally. It's human nature to choose something that makes you feel good over something that's correct, but part of being an adult is learning and accepting that not everything you believe to be true or untrue actually is.

Nailed it.



As an aside, I don't think the term "fake news" is at all helpful. It's a politically charged term with no universally agreed upon meaning, and it has a strong link with a certain political group. It is, for all intents and purposes, a very well crafted phrase designed to appeal to the masses in the same way that clickbait does. Saying something is factually inaccurate, fallacious, speculative, leading, presumptive, or simply encourages readers to adopt one point of view over another is much more descriptive and helpful when trying to separate fact from opinion. There's no single or simple answer to fake news, because there's no single or simple definition of what fake news is.

If you want to learn the facts, you're going to have to use the scientific method. You'll need to know what confirmation bias is, and you'll need to understand how to be objective. You'll need to look at multiple sources, and understand where each detail in stories is coming from. You'll have to be able to assess the validity of sources, and you'll have to separate proven facts with information presented as factual. Perhaps most importantly, you'll have to sometimes be content with admitting that you don't know something, and that there's no way to find out at that current time. It's not an easy task, which is why most people don't bother. Now piss off with your fake news bollocks.

 

[photonrider]

I feel like I'm witnessing @photonrider's slow descent into insanity reading this thread.
.

Now piss off with your fake news bollocks.

Easy, guys. Got to watch that cortisol rush - it will kill you. ((I'm hoping you aren't the laugh police, too. )

As for your comments - they may (or may not) be valid - and quite possibly have facts buried in the rhetoric - but we should not rush into examining these issues. A little patience sometimes sheds more light. Above all we must try to be objective - especially when tossing graphemes around to fix concepts universal to all perceptions.

Since I regularly indulge in the pleasure of digital detoxing, I'll be back, eventually, to give you the attention you crave from addressing not just the post but the poster. 👍

 

[photonrider]

"(CNN)A picture purporting to show former President Barack Obama helping serve meals in Houston, Texas, in the wake of Hurricane Harvey was shared thousands of times on Twitter this weekend. The photograph, however, is two years old and was taken at a homeless shelter in Washington during Thanksgiving.

The picture was shared on Twitter Saturday with the text "Something you'll never see Trump do: Obama is in Texas serving meals!" As of Monday morning it had more than 7,000 retweets.

When other tweeters called the poster out on the error, he replied, "Sorry for people thinking this was in texas (he was there) but this is from 2015." A representative for Obama told CNN the former president was not in Texas.

When contacted by CNN on Monday, the person who originally posted the tweet said they had deleted it."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/28/us/obama-houston-photo-debunk-trnd/index.html

 

[TenEightyOne]

When other tweeters called the poster out on the error, he replied, "Sorry for people thinking this was in texas (he was there) but this is from 2015." A representative for Obama told CNN the former president was not in Texas.

When contacted by CNN on Monday, the person who originally posted the tweet said they had deleted it."

But that news is real news... it's the original tweetage that was bollocks. If we expand Fake Noos Watch to cover twitter idiocy then we'll be here, well, as long as twitter

 

[ryzno]

But that news is real news... it's the original tweetage that was bollocks. If we expand Fake Noos Watch to cover twitter idiocy then we'll be here, well, as long as twitter

Don't worry, it's floating around on Facebook.

 

[UKMikey]

Don't worry, it's floating around on Facebook.

If people rely on FB as their primary news source then they deserve what they get. The fake news apocalypse may have to be postponed a little longer (or merged with the Media Bias thread maybe).

Guess I could always repost this Dagens Nyheter story I originally posted elsewhere about not-Muslims fouling up a church.

http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/fr...-about-who-had-desecrated-a-church-in-sweden/

 

[eran0004]

Having the power to influence thought should not give the newspapers carte blanche to lie:

​

They go on to bolster this with:
​

"But madness of that sort was far from uncommon in Europe’s royal families, not least because of the inbreeding favoured by their convention that members of a royal family could not marry beneath their station. As H.C. Erik Midelfort explains in his entertaining 1996 monograph Mad Princes of Renaissance Germany, in 16th-century Germany nearly 30 dukes, landgraves and counts were regarded by their courts and ministers as mad enough to require medical attention or removal from office. But what exactly was meant by “mad”? Midelfort explains that advisers and family members spoke of “weakness, folly, debility, and the condition of not being right,” or sometimes “furor, or melancholy, or sickness” when they encountered princes who seemed to be mentally unsuited to rule. The notion of clinical insanity or certifiable madness is one that only became current in the 19th century."

​

​

It's provocative, but what makes it a lie?

As for the quote, why did you omit the first part of the paragraph? Because in the context above it looks like "madness of that sort" refers to the madness of Donald Trump, when in fact it refers to some specific and obvious signs of madness. Here is how it starts:

"In modern times, just as further back in history, madness is a slippery concept, hard to pin down unless there are obvious signs of delusion, derangement, paranoia or actual physical aggression. But madness of that sort..."

 

[BobK]

​

It's provocative, but what makes it a lie?

As for the quote, why did you omit the first part of the paragraph? Because in the context above it looks like "madness of that sort" refers to the madness of Donald Trump, when in fact it refers to some specific and obvious signs of madness. Here is how it starts:

"In modern times, just as further back in history, madness is a slippery concept, hard to pin down unless there are obvious signs of delusion, derangement, paranoia or actual physical aggression. But madness of that sort..."

How about the headline: "The madness of King Donald Trump..." are you seriously claiming that's factually accurate?

 

[photonrider]

It's provocative, but what makes it a lie?

What makes it the truth? The literal truth? We're talking about information disseminated under credibility-demanding platforms - newspapers read by the 'man-on-the-street'.
Now - those who consider themselves intellectuals may not be fooled. They can see it as biased reporting (there is a thread already for that created by @Danoff many years ago. We can tackle stuff like this in that discussion, too.)

But the platform created here was to source any sort of false information (a.k.a. 'fake news') and expose it. Doesn't matter whether it's something we've always believed, that Science has now disproved, or a picture passed around that has been photoshopped to influence the perception of reality, or a real picture passed off as something else altogether - this should explain my post showing CNN exposing the picture of Obama as 'fake' - in the context of how it's been used.
What we are to bring in here - as outlined clearly in the OP - is fake news of any sort that has been exposed as fake information - doesn't matter how or who has exposed it.
It is quite possible at this time that the Obama pic in question is still being passed around as 'the real thing'.

But there are those that would say it doesn't matter - it's the 'Facebookers' that are doing it, the 'Tweeters' that are doing it.
Much like saying their votes do not matter either.
False information leads to false perceptions and therefore to realities that may not be entirely palatable.
This is what leads to genocide.

But this brings us to another facet of this phenomena: the one that @TheCracker brought up when he broached the issue of the difference between 'Viewpoints' and 'Fake news' - much like the nut this member split in half when he asked 'Ballistic or nuclear?' in the discussion about North Korea.

Newspaper reports should not read like Opinions. Opinions are opinions. Opinions cannot be proved. Facts can.
If I said that Donald Trump is a 'rotten apple' - that would be my opinion. If I said that he is the 45th President of the United States that would be a fact. If I said 'Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States is a rotten apple' then I'm mixing fact with fiction.
If there were enough people who valued what I said, took it as the truth, then very soon people who didn't like Donald Trump would be unsheathing their knives looking for worms.

To make it worse - on the very same day the article in the Toronto Star (and I'm using the Star on as an example to get this project going) touted 'King' Donald Trump's insanity, backing it up with biological evidence of other people's 'madness' from the past, it also provided a bona-fide opinion on the matter - much like it was an 'opinion' based on what was already 'fact'.

Here is the Opinion (Editorial) in that same issue:

This is a complicated issue even for educated folk.
For the folk that never got past Elementary school, this sort of spamming is taken at face-value.
But are they to be ignored, are they lesser human beings because their education wasn't important, that they had other priorities on a planet that offers diverse options in the pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness?
Are we to say - Oh! They are only people who use FB, so they don't matter, their lives don't matter, their contribution to society, the economy, or their vote that puts someone in the Oval Office, doesn't matter?
We are our brother's keeper. Or else what happens is someone comes along with a toothbrush moustache with bare-faced lies that sway people to hustle generations into a gas-chamber. Or someone who would line up millions and execute them because they refuse to worship a false god.
Or generate hate.

I like to read them because I believe them to be fake... yet their existence and ongoing popularity (to some) is a fact. I'm fascinated about why this is, why their agenda exists and what we can learn from it when trying to make things better.

I don't suggest that anybody else should read them of course, that would just be cruel

I'll find some particular examples for you later, I've got a slipped disc and it's strong medication time!

That is alright - as long as you don't lose your grip on reality.

But that news is real news... it's the original tweetage that was bollocks. If we expand Fake Noos Watch to cover twitter idiocy then we'll be here, well, as long as twitter

Again - what is being down here is to expose false information - doesn't matter where it comes from - TTV, newspapers, books, internet, etc.

 

[UKMikey]

What makes it the truth? The literal truth? We're talking about information disseminated under credibility-demanding platforms - newspapers read by the 'man-on-the-street'.

If we expand Fake Noos Watch to cover twitter idiocy then we'll be here, well, as long as twitter

Again - what is being down here is to expose false information - doesn't matter where it comes from - TTV, newspapers, books, internet, etc.

If you're going to start policing private individuals making Facebook posts and tweets you may be here a long time. What exactly is credibility-demanding about them?

 

[photonrider]

If you're going to start policing private individuals making Facebook posts and tweets you may be here a long time. What exactly is credibility-demanding about them?

"Policing?"

'Credibility-demanding' was applied to the newspapers, not Facebookers.

Next question?

If we are to discuss issues in text and visuals, protected safely behind a screen of dancing electrons, then we must must be patient - we must read, re-read, ponder, and consider these issues from all angles before we jump in with virtual fists that mean nothing at all.

 

[UKMikey]

"Policing?"

'Credibility-demanding' was applied to the newspapers, not Facebookers.

Next question?

No questions, it's just confusing when you mix up two different approaches in the same post. It makes one wonder what the scope or point of this thread is. I thought everyone knew individual FBs or tweets are likely to contain unsubstantiated BS without you stepping in to "expose" them.

Especially as we had a perfectly good Media Bias thread already.

 

[photonrider]

No questions, it's just confusing when you mix up two different approaches in the same post. It makes one wonder what the scope or point of this thread is. I thought everyone knew individual FBs or tweets are likely to contain unsubstantiated BS without you stepping in to "expose" them.

Especially as we had a perfectly good Media Bias thread already.

Read the OP again. This is not only about media bias. Its about fake information.

How more simply am I to explain it to you?

"I thought everyone knew individual FBs or tweets are likely to contain unsubstantiated BS without you stepping in to "expose" them."

Is this a fact? And why should it be?

 

[UKMikey]

Read the OP again. This is not only about media bias. Its about fake information.

How more simply am I to explain it to you?

Information, not just news then? Looks like the scope has shifted.

"I thought everyone knew individual FBs or tweets are likely to contain unsubstantiated BS without you stepping in to "expose" them."

Is this a fact? And why should it be?

It's clearly an opinion. And why should what be?

 

[photonrider]

Information, not just news then? Looks like the scope has shifted.

READ. THE. OP.
VIEW. THE. GRAPHIC.

'nuff said. You either appear to be trolling now, or English is not your native language.

 

[UKMikey]

I feel like I'm witnessing @photonrider's slow descent into insanity reading this thread.

If you feel that I'm trolling you by questioning the nature of your thread, then you may want to flag my posts.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Read the OP again. This is not only about media bias. Its about fake information.

Surely it's normal for people to consider there to be a difference between information and news? If I told you that China had invaded Russia then that's simply information. It turns out it's not true. If I tell you that on Facebook, at the bar or on a bus it has the same import - one person tells another something that they think is true. Or that they know isn't true. You tell someone else, it's still just information compared to the context of news - it doesn't matter if you tell the rest of the pub, the rest of the bus or anyone who can see your Facebook posts. Propagation doesn't make the source more believable without some consideration of the accuracy and knowledge of the source.

News is information issued from a journalistic platform. Journalists (wherever they are) have at least a basic code of ethics (even if editors/owners don't) and therefore there's a greater expectation of accuracy from the general public.

If the Daily Mail says China has invaded Russia then they're bound to be able to source that. China hasn't invaded Russia so that's both fake information and fake news.

"I thought everyone knew individual FBs or tweets are likely to contain unsubstantiated BS without you stepping in to "expose" them."

Because they're unsourced, unverified pieces of information propagated by people who believe them, who wish them to be true or who are simply stupid. It's an echo chamber full of confirmation bias. That's not to say that Facebook isn't a valid tool as a social network (its success proves that it is, imo) but a solid news platform it is not.

As per my Twitter comments earlier - if you're going to expand "fake news" to cover the ******** that people post on Facebook then you're going to spend your days trying to brush the tide off the beach.

 

[eran0004]

How about the headline: "The madness of King Donald Trump..." are you seriously claiming that's factually accurate?

That is the topic of the essay, so yes. Are you claiming that it's factually incorrect? If so, why?

What makes it the truth? The literal truth?

You said that it's a lie, you need to show where that lie is.

Newspaper reports should not read like Opinions. Opinions are opinions. Opinions cannot be proved. Facts can.
If I said that Donald Trump is a 'rotten apple' - that would be my opinion. If I said that he is the 45th President of the United States that would be a fact. If I said 'Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States is a rotten apple' then I'm mixing fact with fiction.
If there were enough people who valued what I said, took it as the truth, then very soon people who didn't like Donald Trump would be unsheathing their knives looking for worms.

First of all it's an essay and not a news report. Second, it doesn't say that Donald Trump is a bad apple, it suggests that it may be the case. Opening the door for a possibility is not the same thing as telling a lie. Speculating in an essay is not the same thing as "faking news".

If you read the essay it says that it's possible that Trump is mad, but also that it's possible that he isn't. The essay provides examples in support of both possibilities. Merely discussing whether he may be mad or not is not the same as saying "Donald Trump is in fact mad" and you can't call it a lie.

To make it worse - on the very same day the article in the Toronto Star (and I'm using the Star on as an example to get this project going) touted 'King' Donald Trump's insanity, backing it up with biological evidence of other people's 'madness' from the past

Except that it didn't. To summarize, the essay says this: "Is Donald Trump mad or not? Some facts suggests that he may be, while other facts suggests that he may not be. If he is, how would we deal with it? How did the courts of Europe deal with insane rulers hundreds of years ago? What role would the people closest to Trump have?".

The biographical evidence you refer to is not about Donald Trump, it's a discussion about madness, on what it is and what it was before the days of modern psychology. It was you made it look like it was referring to Trump, by removing the initial part of the paragraph and posting it directly underneath the headline without providing the proper context. When restoring the initial part, it's clear that "that kind of madness" refers to things like paranoia and aggression - not to Donald Trump. I would even argue that when you present the article that way, you yourself is guilty of creating "fake news", since you make it look like the article says something different from what it actually does.

At most, this article is provocative. But provocation and lies are not the same thing.

it also provided a bona-fide opinion on the matter - much like it was an 'opinion' based on what was already 'fact'.

You need to elaborate on that. What is the opinion that it provides and what are the claimed facts?

This is a complicated issue even for educated folk.
For the folk that never got past Elementary school, this sort of spamming is taken at face-value.
But are they to be ignored, are they lesser human beings because their education wasn't important, that they had other priorities on a planet that offers diverse options in the pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness?
Are we to say - Oh! They are only people who use FB, so they don't matter, their lives don't matter, their contribution to society, the economy, or their vote that puts someone in the Oval Office, doesn't matter?

On the contrary. It's easier to judge an opinion on a fact than to judge a fact all by yourself. If I know nothing about economy, how am I supposed to form an opinion about a proposed tax change? It's easier to read an opinion piece (or even better to read several of them, so you get as many perspectives as possible) about that tax change and then decide whether or not you agree with it. If media doesn't take that role anymore, then who would?

We are our brother's keeper. Or else what happens is someone comes along with a toothbrush moustache with bare-faced lies that sway people to hustle generations into a gas-chamber. Or someone who would line up millions and execute them because they refuse to worship a false god.
Or generate hate.

So basically, if media doesn't stop expressing opinions (like they have for at least 200 years, or even a thousand years given that the church had that role before newspapers became a thing) we will end up with Hitler 2.0? I think that's wrong. Hitler could only do what he did by limiting the freedom of expression - not the other way around.

 

[BobK]

That is the topic of the essay, so yes. Are you claiming that it's factually incorrect? If so, why?

Yes it is factually incorrect. Do you really believe he's KING Donald Trump and that I must disprove it?

Which is not the way it works anyway -- you assert the truthfulness of something, it's on you to furnish the evidence, it is not anybody else's obligation to disprove it although they may if they wish.

And that whole "madness" thing... on just what evidence are they declaring he "may" be mad? Pedantically they may be not calling him outright a madman, but it certainly seems to me that that's what they want their readership to think.