Talk:Fake news/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 6 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)


I think we're getting to mainspaceable material[edit]

yay/nay? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, this no longer has any gaps, and is definetly post-stub, Imma mainspace it. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I had the same idea[edit]

I've been working to curate Webshites and recently added the following to the "external links" section there:

As this issue is starting to gain prominence, I think a new page is warranted. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

50 citations[edit]

Nice work, everyone! :) FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 17:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Found another good list[edit]

NewsBusters[edit]

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/dan-gainor/2016/11/04/tipped-clinton-campaign-knew-advance-stories-would-be-positive FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 20:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Help With Daily Currant[edit]

I'm not savvy enough with the wiki to know how to insert a logo for the Daily Currant. Could someone help with this? RoninMacbeth (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Pretty simple:
  1. Google "Daily Currant logo"; find and download the correct image
  2. Go to Special:Upload. Select the photo, fill out the fair use form (literally just put your username and this page name), and click "upload".
Done. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 15:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

100 citations[edit]

Does anyone else's brain feel a bit mushy now? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 18:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ZeroHedge is hella salty[edit]

Zero Hedge Targeted On Liberal Professor's List of "Fake News" Sources. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Limit the headlines?[edit]

Perhaps there should be a limit to the number of headlines before this gets out of hand. Some of these sites obviously are bottomless pits. They can always be listed in more depth on their own page, e.g. Alex Jones. Bongolian (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. Alex Jone's site is a armpit of awful.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talk • stalk) 03:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Arbitrary limit at 10 sound fine? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 05:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Why not. Bongolian (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Well I found a solution. I have a thumbnail with randomly selected headlines, though we can still have a list of 10 max articles.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talk • stalk)

Some moonbat clickbait-infested webshites, anyone?[edit]

I just encountered a post on Patheos from way back in September which bemoaned the appearance of the same sorts of low-quality news sites on the left. Having never heard of these before, I can't vouch for how accurate Ed Brayton's assessment is, but I'll reproduce the list here anyway:

  • Occupy Democrats
  • Bipartisan Report
  • Winning Democrats
  • PoliticusUSA
  • Blue Nation Review
  • IfYouOnlyNews
  • USUncut
  • The Freethought Project
  • Addicting Info
  • LiberalAmerica
  • Newslo
  • Politicalo (almost anything that ends on lo; these sites specialize in taking accurate statements from politicians and then adding false quotes to them that are much worse than what they actually said)
  • DailyNewsBin
  • American News X
  • Being Liberal
  • The Other 98%

I wanted to add additional links and insights from the comments section, but I didn't notice anything there of value except for this comment (update: struck out the dupes):

Matt Desmond runs several websites and facebook pages, all clickbait:

  • AddictingInfoOrg
  • RepublicansAreIdiots
  • Republicansareidiots1
  • beingliberal
  • liberalandproudofit
  • OccupyDemocrats
  • MinimumWageRaise
  • TheEverlastingGopStoppers
  • Political-Loudmouth
  • If-You-Only-News

Again, I've never heard of any of these. --50.1.143.182 (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Dammit, I didn't realize Cosmikdebris already posted this. --50.1.143.182 (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
You know, twice people have said they haven't heard of "any of these" but occupydemocrats at least has been linked on WIGO:World on multiple occasions. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Most — if not all — of these belong in the article, methinks. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I can only really speak to addictinginfo as being a often-misleading infographic sharer extraordinaire. I'm a little wary of diluting this article with sources that don't publish any sort of falsifications. Try to keep to FCP's why it's fake format. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Relevant cartoons[edit]

FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 06:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Another one: http://i.imgur.com/RcBMgRL.jpg FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Sources for an introductory text segment[edit]

Fixation on Fake News Overshadows Waning Trust in Real Reporting

How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study

Facebook Considering Ways to Combat Fake News, Mark Zuckerberg Says

Google and Facebook Take Aim at Fake News Sites

The Hoaxes, Fake News and Misinformation We Saw on Election Day

Since I think the article's missing some elaboration in text before turning into a list article, I thought we could gather relevant sources here for a future explanative segment of the article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Maybe not so good for an introduction, but the Washington Post interviewed the owners of a what seems to be a relatively dinky fake news site today, LibertyWritersNews.com.[1] Bongolian (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Another source, possibly relevant for the analysis portion: How To Recognize A Fake News Story Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

using the choose tags[edit]

A big part of the reason this page was formatted the way it was is that it's easily copy-pasteable. We don't want people to have to reload the entire article just to see more examples of batshit articles by one website. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 16:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Another interview[edit]

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs FuzzyCatPotato of the Awesome Audis (talk/stalk) 02:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

GOT'EM[edit]

Courtesy of ya boi EK from h3. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I actually think this is a pretty nice video because of the ethos it sets up. Ethan is just some random, honest dude on a crusade for facts, man. Not a rich-ass YouTuber riding another popularity wave against fake news. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 17:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
He's remarkably sensible (though he's very clear that h3h3 is a comedy channel, and watching it for more than comedy at the end of the day is not done on his recommendation). But hell, he's even correctly called out both the Alt-right and the radfem Zornas of the world for being part of what he terms "the cult of outrage" (sharing end on the horseshoe of butthurtness), while making clear to both sides that neither understand feminism, that feminism isn't the problem, and that they're both arguing for (and against) what is a bastardization of the actual struggle for women's rights (and equal rights). All the while inventing several dank memes in the process. What's not to love? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Counterpoint: outrage can be a valid thing to feel in politics, as lives and basic rights can be on the line, and merely being outraged as a reason to dismiss an argument is perhaps not the best heuristic(I'd go so far as to say it's terrible). ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I think this video is packed with worthwhile points from Ethan, to be honest. Much about not dehumanizing people. Also, to place myself in the School Of Life comparison between Romantical and Classical "temperament", I'm firmly a classical person (something like 80% classical/20% romantic, per the terms in the video). Anger should never be denied, and can be a great — even ethically necessary reaction to things — but never trust a person in full fury who insists he's thinking clearly right then and there. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Nuking the satirical fake news sites[edit]

Hey Ikanreed, the rationale you provided for nuking the entries for the satirical fake news site "pending any evidence that people share its content thinking its real." In the entry for "Noah’s Ark Theme Park Destroyed In A Flood" I included a reference to a companion Snopes article debunking the original fake news post. One would assume that this article was indeed passed around as real if Snopes had to spend the time creating a page to debunk it. I wouldn't have added this section if I hadn't encountered this particular post in the wild being claimed as real.

Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Just gonna drop this here: http://literallyunbelievable.org/ Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
A lot of these sites are fake-news leddling clickbaits that call their work satirical so they don't get sued. There's rarely any satire in the ones Snopes has to debunk, which makes them more believable.-- 194.81.33.234 (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I do agree with Ikanreed that there were too many satirical websites, proportionally. Make this page proportionally-more-serious again. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 21:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, BoN, the ones of those sort were originally included under a "satire" in sarcasm quotes section but got reworked out of the article. The most egregious example of those was abc.com.co which is now just included in the "extremely biased" section, which I just retitled to "Outright made up or completely unsubstantiated". @Fuzzy, yep, but I still think Onion should be included because people are very often misled. But at the bottom because they're usually making a real point with their satire. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
That's fair. If you think that I'm off-base feel free to readd. I think the main fix was relocating satire to the bottom and De-emphazising it. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Seems like a goodfix; I might add them back, just for completeness reasons. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
The whole topic of satirical news sites might warrant an article of its own at some point. It might be worthwhile to consider expanding the textual analysis in the whole article (not just the satire sites) and de-emphasizing the headline lists. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
There's very large numbers of Satire sites, FCP, we will never have them be complete. A good threshold might be "requiring multiple debunkings" or something. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't we have a segment on satirical news that is ONLY about citing cases where satirical news were mistaken for real news? Sweden had a fairly right-wing "drug czar" a while back, who retweeted an article from The Onion about Colorado's legalization of cannabis causing overdose deaths from day one. She generated a lot of lulz by doing so, revealing her lack of knowledge on the topic. I think such instances should be covered, but not a single satirical article just 'cause it's funny. Most of them are. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Options[edit]

To make this a little clearer, these are the options I see (feel free to add):

  1. Quality control:
    1. Nuke all satirical sites.
    2. Nuke all satirical sites that fit some criteria (eg, multiple debunkings)
    3. Nuke no satirical sites
  2. Location:
    1. Move all satirical articles previous position
    2. Move all satirical sites to bottom of article
    3. Move all satirical sites to a new page

I'd be fine with anything short of nuking all satirical sites; anywhere is fine. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 23:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Move them to Fun:Fake News, perchance? Worzelpete (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, let's move the actual satirical news to fun:fake news (if anyone wants to even make that page...?). But in short, I think we should cover satirical news, but only to the extent they've been cited by people who (not due to the satirical news sites doing anything wrong!) have cerebrally managed to think they were actual news. That needs coverage, but aside from that, we shouldn't say anything on fake news. The "fake" in fake news (as pertains to satire) is that people who should know better somehow thought the Onion was a real news outlet in select cases, not that "the Onion is perpetuating fake news". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Fox News[edit]

Does Fox's broadcasting by Fox of a doctored Obama video that to make it seem like he supported voting by illegal immigrants[2][3] merit moving Fox News from "See also" into its own section? Bongolian (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

"Pizzagate"[edit]

I'm surprised that there's no mention of "Pizzagate" on the page yet. There's a community down in DC that's scared now because some asshat believed that particular fake news stand shot up a pizza shop there last weekend. Also, the son of the Drump's pick for national security adviser was reportedly kicked off the campaign for continuing to perpetuate this conspiracy theory on social networks. [4], [5], etc. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it warrants its own RW page if you want to start one. Bongolian (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

How far 'til Silver?[edit]

Not that far? Maybe after adding a general "analysis" segment? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The history section could use some fluffing up. Also, reign in the excessive number of headlines? Bongolian (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, this is the kind of article where examples need to stack up — I think that as long as they're relevant, nuanced and somewhat novel (in relation to eachother), we could actually use more links, not less. But you're right; the article isn't actually titled "List of...". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps have a top 5 or 10 for each and then put the rest in a collapsed (hideable) table? Bongolian (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
In fact, considering this isn't really a list article, we should write an analysis section + expand the history section. Regarding the link examples, I think we should settle on 10 "top picks" for each stupid site (so 10 InfoWars headlines, 10 NaturalNews headlines... et cetera) and not have more links than that. If we can't make our point in 10 examples per site, we can't make our point at all. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Though, on the other hand, as long as we can find specific debunked headlines, I suppose we could go over 10. As long as each example is accompanyed by a debunking source (e.g. Snopes link), we could go really high imo. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Are you arguing with yourself?! Maybe we need more input from others. Bongolian (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Quiet, Percy — I can't hear what I'm thinking! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Current viral story[edit]

Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 19:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Facebook groups[edit]

Should we add those crappy meme groups on Facebook like Occupy democrats and Being Conservative?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh god yes. Social "news" is at the very heart of the problem. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Maybe under their own new section? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 21:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
That is what I was thinking since I doubt that they would work under any other section. Also, I am surprised we haven't added the Drudge Report yet.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Everybody knows Drudge is crap. That being said, we very much need to cover "social media news", and should do so under a separate headline. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Drudge actually managed to break a real story one time in the 90s. Sure that's not even the last decade, but... uh... I got nothing. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
But please don't draw the facile conclusion that this is all Facebook's fault and there'd be no problem if people got their news on TV. Worzelpete (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Based on how misinformed both MSNBC and Fox News viewers are, there would still be a problem. 24 hour news cycles are the worst thing to ever exist.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Can't we all agree that both the internet and corporate, ratings-chasing news are to blame? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely. I don't think any was argue the opposite.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hasn't the Moonie Times been sold?[edit]

Are they still owned 100% by the Unification Church? I thought they'd sold it... Worzelpete (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The Moonie Times is still completely owned by the Unification Church, per this AP story dated 15 October 2015. See also Operations Holdings - About Us. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Reviving a template[edit]

I feel like the {{bs}} template could work well here: see Template talk:Badsource. Thoughts? FuzzyCatPotato of the Treasonous Mammary glands (talk/stalk) 18:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Did it ever work? It appears (and fails) on about 10 pages.[6] Bongolian (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
It was overapplied by one overzealous user. I've strengthened the wording and added a stringent doc. Try 2, kids! Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I renew my protest to that rather pointless template. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Reverend Black Percy. There's no good reason to have that template.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talk • stalk) 02:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

National Report[edit]

It might be satire. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I wanna get one-a-those "pray tans".[7] Bongolian (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
"Pray tans"... so there is a God — of puns! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

NWO is now one step ahead of Alex Jones[edit]

The Daily Fail has the scoop, or something to that effect. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The more it is claimed 'this is the true story[edit]

... the more likely it is to be a construct. (Those which merely state at the beginning some variant of 'This is the true story of...' may well be correct in part or whole).

Should not Private Eye be mentioned as a satirical publication/purveyors of fake news in the front page cartoon? 31.51.113.59 (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Isn't Private Eye more notorious for reporting rumours Ian Hislop overhears? We'll end up with varying degrees of 'fake news' with "ACORN video" level; "honest Guardian report by an author with no idea what a/he's talking about" level; "biased news source that is accurate but ignoring the stuff critical of their side" (where most mainstream newspapers Daily Mail readers call Fake News are); "click bait the owner claims is satire to get out lawsuits", to "Onion satire that's honestly satirical".-- 92.18.249.13 (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

We need a written portion on Trump[edit]

“”Any negative polls are fake news.
—Trump

The guy tweets "FAKE NEWS" (generally in allcaps) every other day, but he's yet to actually apply the term correctly. It would seem that Donald has his own definition of the term, in fact meaning something along the lines of "liberal media". And there's so many sourced instances of him (mis)using the "fake news" terminology, too. As such, we really need an article portion that explains how Donald's use of the term "fake news" is NOT what it actually denotes. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

To which extent is this partisan damage control?[edit]

And to which extent (if any) is this a validation of Trump's "fake news" terminology? Article in question: http://thefederalist.com/2017/02/06/16-fake-news-stories-reporters-have-run-since-trump-won/

You have to admit that for once someone other than Trump chose to use the words "fake news", though on the other hand, this might just mean that The Federalist — as well as Trump — just fail to understand what "fake news" actually means.

As tweeted by the POTUS. Noting that The Federalist is generally considered part of conservative media, afaik. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Case study on anti-white, pro-SJW fake news[edit]

Don't believe everything you read on the net, kids. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm just going to note that me writing the above while simultaneously being caught out with this seems a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. Just a reminder that, as a human, your only real options are denying or admitting how utterly flawed your reasoning is and always will be. Hey, atleast I'm trying to do the latter. Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

How NOT to spot fake news[edit]

Recommended viewing, especially if you haven't read Chomsky. Not that he's infallible or anything; it's just interesting. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Karl Marx[edit]

Made reference to the 'thesis-antithesis-synthesis' cycle.

If 'fake news is the thesis' - what is the antithesis, and how can it be promoted? 86.191.127.82 (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what do you mean you "made reference" to it? You mean here, right now? Because it doesn't look like you've edited the article at all. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 06:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Troll sites[edit]

OK, is The Underground Report[8] satirical or fake news? Maybe there should be another category for trolling? They were going for the fake-news angle until March 3 then announced that they were trolling everybody.[9][10] Bongolian (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Smells like satire. Was it in March 3 that they put "a disclaimer at the bottom of the page stating that [their] stories are not based in reality" even though they admit that the over-the-top nature of the stories doesn't really need a disclaimerthey now know what Poe's Law is? We can put this under "satire" and then say "they presented themselves as fake news until they later told the truth about their stories". --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I agree. Christopher (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

BBC: Rise of left-wing, anti-Trump fake news[edit]

An urgent reminder that fake news mills WILL do all they can to dupe people for clicks and shares. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Nothing new under the sun.Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Trump expands the term[edit]

Fake News, I've heard of. But with all of the Fake News, there ought — logically — to exist an umbrella term, denoting the whole Fake News shebang. A sort of plural of the term, if you will. And here we go — "Fake Media" enters the vocabulary. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Something that used to mean something became a buzzword for crap you don't like. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 04:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Make that, a buzzword for crap Trump doesn't like. Honestly, I've only ever seen him use the term "fake news" as blatantly as he does. I mean, even his diehard online supporters will criticize outlets like CNN or BBC with so many words, certainly — yet they still seem to find it untenable to use the words "fake news" for these organisations in the face of competent opposition (since it's just too costly an allegation, compared to just calling them "biased", "corrupt", "fault-finding", etc). But the same doesn't go for the man himself. He calls his own intelligence briefings fake news if they don't please him. And debate-wise, why — it would appear that Donald Trump is one, yuuge, walking "Get-out-of-jail-free"-card. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Browsing Twitter probably isn't a good indicator of anything, but I've seen people yell "fake news" when they see news they don't like. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest.com[edit]

I'm not sure if it's fake news or just an overexaggerated group blog (a la The Palmer Report).

Here's an example story: TRUMP’S TOP AIDES NOW BEING INVESTIGATED BY MUELLER FOR POSSIBLE ‘MONEY LAUNDERING’.

Said story appears to be a repost of one paragraph from the New York Times:

The Snopes Public Group has two posts on whether it's real:

There are many more articles in this vein:

The site has 300k likes on Facebook. Alexa puts it at 96k-th most popular, with a history back to 2014. ICANN WHOIS says the site was created in 1995 and updated in 2012; it's currently registered through "Domains By Proxy, LLC", with no private details apparent.

FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 13:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

"Domains By Proxy"? I'm all for net neutrality and proxies, but that does sound suspicious — legitimate media tends to make itself openly available by choice, as part of its own ethos of transparency (though, maybe I only generalize that to here 'cause I'm Swedish). Regardless, the name reminds me of services like WhoIsGuard (as utilized by RedPanels). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and see also: Law of exclamation. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
They appear to be a bunch of bloggers whose company contact is a gmail account. For the most part, they appear to aggregate stories from mainstream media into short-attention-span style summaries. And, of course, they have the "facebook comments plug-in" to collect the insipid and inane from social media. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Trump lists MSM outlets he consider FAKE NEWS outlets. (Very sad!)[edit]

These include:

  • CNN
  • NBC
  • ABC
  • CBS
  • The Washington Post
  • The New York Times

As a non-American, I wonder — what's left standing (aside from stuff like USA Today)? Fox News and InfoWars? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

How to spot fake news[edit]

Step 1: use your brain. Rimuru Da NinjaRimuru Slime.png 15:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Worthy of WikiHow Facepalm Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes, the pleasant joy derived from denial of the sapience of others. Plenty of people think, and think in ways that lead them to terribly stupid conclusions, because there's no critical component to the thought. Excessive credulity, misdirected incredulity, or wanton self deception aren't a real problem at all. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
"We typically have a bias that tells us we are less susceptible to bias than everyone else. Our default position tends to be that our opinions are the result of learning, experience and personal reflection. The things we believe are obviously true — and everyone would agree if only they could look at the issue with clear, objective, unimpeded sight. But they don't because they're biased. Their judgements are confused by ill-informed hunches and personal grudges. They might think they're beautiful and clever and right but their view of reality is skewed..." Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that thing. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Step 1: Read the headline only. The headline's the only thing that matters. If you absolutely must, you can read the first paragraph or two, but any more than that and you're in danger of distracting yourself from the core meat of the story.

Step 2: Evaluate the core meat of the story. If it agrees with your worldview and beliefs, then it's real news, and you should absolutely share it. If it doesn't, then it's clearly fake news paid for by the evil other side who want to destroy the world and all that's good in it.

Step 3: Never ever follow the source of the news, or weigh the authenticity of the reporting based on the journal and/or journalists' history and reputation. Journalists, as is well-known, have no biases themselves and never omit things or frame them in ways that distorts the source. Except when they're not real journalists but paid shills by the aforementioned evil other side who want to destroy the world and all that's good in it. But the article itself will still give away its truthiness based on Step 2, no matter who wrote it.

A simple three-step process to ensure you correctly identify any fake news. I hope this helps! -- Onychoprion (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Guys, I was just joking.Rimuru Da NinjaRimuru Slime.png 19:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Hehe, I know; I was just having fun with the idea. -- Onychoprion (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
So you admit your first post was fake news?!?!? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Mash up the banner headline, subheadings and first and last paragraphs, and ignore the rest of the text with its qualifiers.
Also, the more the information/viewpoint is on the outliers of general knowledge, the more accurate it is likely to be. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Trump's "news" show[edit]

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki:Saloon bar.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/02/media/trump-real-news/index.html

Now that would be actual fake news. I think I understand now how people feel when dictatorships rise. It is horrible. Trump is a virus infecting the United States and may start spreading. Something has to be done. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

maybe get some perspective. dictators get stuff done, are able to legislate. how much has trump done? nothing. no where close to being a dictatorhip. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Fake news in physics[edit]

Deserving of its own subsection in the article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Do not confuse[edit]

Fake news with news about fakes. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Does this count as fake news?

There is 'actual news', there is interpretation of the news (often from a particular viewpoint), there is selection of the news (the sports newspapers will put a different cast on the weather to the hotels gazette or farmers times) and there is fake news. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

In short:
  1. Modern fake news: purposely distort news to shock readers to sell more papers, get more views, etc.
  2. Bad journalism: Dewey Defeats Truman was a product of human error. The company would probably change the headline if they knew better.
  3. Submitting different slant of the same story to different audiences to maximize revenue.
While being strict with the fake news definition in the article, #2 would count as bad journalism. For #3, it’s not false, it’s just a different perspective, granted it’s to generate more profit. With all three scenarios, news companies are a business first and a service second, however, each one differs in how it approaches to make profit; this differs in degress of incompetence and sleaze. It’s worth thinking about.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talk • stalk) 19:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The Dewey-Truman headline was sloppy journalism - at the time there was a direct correlation between 'possessing a private phone' and 'likely voting intention'; and most people would accept that 'news is slanted to the interests of the readers, advertisers and publication owner' - the sporting paper would say 'storm stops races' and Woodwork for Fun and Profit' would have 'Windfall in Wood.' Most of us want the news put in context/trends being indicated - and for those of us who look at several sources of news can find the divergences of interest.
There is probably some fluidity at the boundaries between the different categories.
A more subtle form of influencing opinion and fake news - the arrangement of the page: the individual stories are 'factual' but together they give a completely different impression.
A story I read somewhere - Nikita Khrushchev and John F Kennedy had a race: Pravda reported it as 'Khrushchev came a respectable second, while Kennedy was second from last.' Deconstruct this factually correct statement. Anna Livia (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Sport[edit]

Some mention should be made of this section on Focus and content - 'Statue of Elvis found on Mars/London Bus found frozen in Antarctica' etc and similar publications. 109.150.43.95 (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fake_news/Archive1&oldid=2367922"