• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

What is "fake news"?

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Vermillion

Banned
I wanted to find another topic to post this in, but couldn't. So I'm keeping the OP short:

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/17/51576...ke-news-and-a-newspaper-threatens-to-sue-back

A news outlet publishes a story that a Republican politician dismisses as "fake news." Sounds familiar, right?

But in this case, there's a twist. The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel in Colorado is accusing state Sen. Ray Scott of defamation and threatening to sue. If filed, legal experts said it would be the first suit of its kind, potentially setting a legal definition for what is considered fake news and what is not.
Click to expand...
 
F

Foffy

Banned
In reality: News that is based on false evidence, to push a narrative. Propaganda.

In Trump's world: All critical news of him. To call it fake news is to infer reality onto his narrative. This is how you can get a "the leaks are real, the news is fake" type of nonsensical phrasing from the orange con man.

I worry Trump's view may become legalized...:(
 
M

Messofanego

Banned
Kadin

Kadin

Member
To me, it's simply the definition of Trump not agreeing with or liking a story. It has nothing to do with the actual facts or lack there of in the story. It's the outcome that he looks at and if it's not supporting him or making him come off in a good light, it's "fake news."

Outside of this, fake news are stories that have very little factual data to back them up and are just endless stories of assumptions with very little if any credible evidence.
 
B

Boem

Member
God I hope this results in something. There need to be legal consequences for this shit. It's easy to laugh about but it's also seriously, incredibly dangerous.

The world has gone mad and there needs to be some control.

Edit: All the posters answering the question in the thread title: that's not really what the OP is asking. It's news about that court case.
 
C

CHC

Member
Good, they should fucking sue.

I'm not usually an advocate of litigation but this trend of Republicans saying "fake news" to anything they don't like is absolutely damaging. And I don't mean to the newspapers' bottom lines. Certainly that is a consideration, but when you have actual government officials claiming things like this, it undermines the entire structure of information flow that our country was built on. The history of America is literally inextricable from news and media, for better or worse.

There should be consequences for officials pointing the finger without any backing like that.
 
D

daffy

Banned
When you tell your friends you're pursuing your dreams in advertising but in actuality you're making DIY homeless videos on youtube
 
Z

zeemumu

Member
It's what happens when a major news source gets a story that you don't want them running but they're too big to sweep under the rug so you try to discredit them instead
 
Y

yanipheonu

Member
There's the very real problem that it has been repeated so often it literally doesn't mean anything anymore. Pretty much just means "I don't like this news" at this point.

The idea of just discarding information because you "don't like it" is about as childish as it gets.
 
X

Xe4

Banned
The definition of fake news is pretty clear: made up bullshit.

It's not a misleading headline, it's not a biased source, and it's not even skewed facts. It's fucking shit someone made up on the spot.

Here's an example of a fake news headline: "BLM activist shoots up local high school".

It's literal bullshit I pulled out of my ass. To make it look legitimate, I put it on a website containing other fake news stories, and add some stock photos and fake interviews.

Fox News, as biased as it is, is not fake news. Even most of Breitbart's stories have some semblance of truth to them, skewed and twisted as it is.

Anyone who calls the NYT, WaPo, CNN, or even Buzzfeed fake news doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.

Hopefully the court comes to the same decision.
 
1

1.21Gigawatts

Banned
Fake News is when deliberately made up information is disguised as actual news with the intent to deceive.


Fake News ≠ biased news
Fake News ≠ honest mistakes in reporting
Fake News ≠ opinions we might not agree with
Fake News ≠ satire
 
M

Muffin1611

Banned
Boem said:
God I hope this results in something. There need to be legal consequences for this shit. It's easy to laugh about but it's also seriously, incredibly dangerous.

The world has gone mad and there needs to be some control.

Edit: All the posters answering the question in the thread title: that's not really what the OP is asking. It's news about that court case.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think we are all too familiar with what fake news is. The court case is the interesting thing here.
 
B

Boem

Member
I guess this thread is now officially about the title rather than the actual article. Shame, it's actually really interesting. Everyone here knows what fake news is, nobody is enlightening anyone by posting without reading the opening post.

I hope it goes through, I always questioned a president being able to openly criticize (read: lie about) easily verifiable news sources without any legal repercussions. It seems like such an obvious thing to hammer down on and hold any politician - especially the president - actually responsible for. There need to be repercussions. Not sure how likely it is anything will come out of this, but it's baffling to me that this has been allowed to go on for so long. If there can't be any legal repercussions, the results in the coming years will be catastrophic, and it will have lasting damage easily beyond Trump's time in office.
 
J

jayu26

Member
Neogaf.

OT: i hate that this is been adopted by Trump supporters when they are the biggest supplier of this nonsense.
 
B

BradC00

Member
Boem said:
I guess this thread is now officially about the title rather than the actual article. Shame, it's actually really interesting. Everyone here knows what fake news is, nobody is enlightening anyone by posting without reading the opening post.

I hope it goes through, I always questioned a president being able to openly criticize (read: lie about) easily verifiable news sources without any legal repercussions. It seems like such an obvious thing to hammer down on and hold any politician - especially the president - actually responsible for. There need to be repercussions. Not sure how likely it is anything will come out of this, but it's baffling to me that this has been allowed to go on for so long. If there can't be any legal repercussions, the results in the coming years will be catastrophic, and it will have lasting damage easily beyond Trump's time in office.
Click to expand...

whoops. yea i think news orgs should be able to fight back if people try and slander them without basis.
 
X

Xe4

Banned
I think fake news, as in the blatant spreading of lies, should be illegal and punishable by jail time if it gets someone hurt, and open to a lawsuit even if it does not. The problem is a lot of fake news doesn't actually come from the US. Much of it comes from countries like Macedonia and the like, which means it'd be practically impossible to prosecute, even if there was a desire to.

Calling someone fake news when they clearly aren't is clearly slander if one goes by the definition of fake news that I gave in my previous post. To do so hurts that journalist/news source's credibility, and so any attempt to label legitimate news sources as fake news should definitely be open to a lawsuit. Hopefully that GOP State Senator looses the case.
 
S

Shamrock7r

Member
This has been pretty clear to me since the election months. When a phrase, word, or negative description catches on about Trump, he hijacks the meaning, and of course his loyal base spreads it.

A few Examples:

-When Trump was first being called out during the election about his possible connections with Russia, he tweeted out that Hillary's connections with Russia need to be monitored.

- When the whole thing about Trump's temperament to be president came into play, Trump constantly during his campaign rallies began specifically using the word "temperament" to describe Hillary Clinton, saying she didn't have the right temperament.

-The fake news thing was initially meant to describe the fake websites that were being spread on social media platforms of made up stories, mostly negative towards Hillary and democrats, so Trump started calling everything fake news, like the mainstream media. He completely watered down the correct and original meaning of why it was brought up in the first place.
 
F

Fury451

Banned
It's literally news that is fake. Lies. Slander. Creating a false reality.

People really should sue for being accused of that by the President.

Pushback is the strongest weapon.
 
B

Boem

Member
Xe4 said:
I think fake news, as in the blatant spreading of lies, should be illegal and punishable by jail time if it gets someone hurt, and open to a lawsuit even if it does not. The problem is a lot of fake news doesn't actually come from the US. Much of it comes from countries like Macedonia and the like, which means it'd be practically impossible to prosecute, even if there was a desire to.

Calling someone fake news when they clearly aren't is clearly slander if one goes by the definition of fake news that I gave in my previous post. To do so hurts that journalist/news source's credibility, and so any attempt to label legitimate news sources as fake news should definitely be open to a lawsuit. Hopefully that GOP State Senator looses the case.
Click to expand...

The creators of fake news can definitely be hard to take on legally, even if they are US based (see Fox News finding a loophole some years back by calling a lot of their programs 'entertainment' or 'opinion pieces' rather than news - no difference to any average Joe just tuning in, but legally they're much better protected to spread their lies).

On the other hand, holding people in public positions (politicians, law makers, the freaking president) responsible for telling the truth to the public should be easier to crack down on. If Trump repeatedly tells obvious lies and contradicts verifiable facts and news sources for his own gain, I think the law should be able to counteract that.

I'm saying should, but these days a lot of things that should happen don't happen.

Fury451 said:
It's literally news that is fake.
Click to expand...

Everyone knows. Not what the thread is about.

I promise I'll give up on being grumpy about people not actually reading the OP. Since I'm just about the only one going on about this, I guess I should just let it go.
 
S

Stead Fast

Banned
It is a hold term for propaganda, and it's rather insidious with it's effects.

You see, fake news is a term that is hailed by many (but not ALL) from the GOP, as a way of instantly discrediting the integrity of a story, or a particular media outlets capacity to run a story without resorting to lying. This is well enough on it's own: it's a ready-to-use phrase used to bat away any scathing questions or accusations made by the media, however, the level in which it has intergrated itself into public concience, without a single spec of evidence to back up most claims of 'fake news', it effectively throws so much more shade on voices of disscent, in a way that a counter argument never could.

People buy it without that much thought as the process of analysing two conflicting views on a story takes more time than they are likely willing to spend in today's society. And this phrase is being delivered with such tenacity and speed lately that it is now damn near impossible to follow up every alleged claim of 'false news'. It's that ease in which it works that scares me the most.
 
X

xelios

Universal Access can be found under System Preferences
Within the context of Trump and Trump supporters, fake news is basically information that their brains won't allow them to believe as a psychological defense mechanism because believing the information to be true or accurate would cause cognitive dissonance.

If we're being completely literal with the question, everyone knows literal fake news is news that is objectively false and usually being reported with the goal being to deceive the audience i.e. not an honest error, mistake or simply biased and you don't like it.

As far as the legality of actually being accused of being fake news when you're not, I think cases should be able to be brought forth just like with typical slander/libel.
 
Swass

Swass

Member
In the solo presser on Thursday, Trump defined it as "tone."

His supporters use it as a way to ignore the scary stuff he is doing..
 
X

Xe4

Banned
Boem said:
The creators of fake news can definitely be hard to take on legally, even if they are US based (see Fox News finding a loophole some years back by calling a lot of their programs 'entertainment' or 'opinion pieces' rather than news - no difference to any average Joe just tuning in, but legally they're much better protected to spread their lies).

On the other hand, holding people in public positions (politicians, law makers, the freaking president) responsible for telling the truth to the public should be easier to crack down on. If Trump repeatedly tells obvious lies and contradicts verifiable facts and news sources for his own gain, I think the law should be able to counteract that.

I'm saying should, but these days a lot of things that should happen don't happen.
Click to expand...

Right, but under the definition of fake news that is frequently given, Fox News is not fake news. It is very clear they are bias, based on the way they cover certain news stories, and they frequency of stories that are pro-conservative/anti-liberal vs. pro-liberal/anti-conservative.

But fake news goes far beyond bias. It is the spreading of information that is blatantly untrue in every respect and can cause harm to people. I think it is a no brainer that those who spread a "story" that Clinton was part of a child sex ring, Clinton could have sued and won, under slander.

I would take it a bit further. Any news source that posts disinformation that leads to people getting hurt or strengthens radicalist tenancies in the US should be a free target to law enforcement agencies. Even in the US, they would be a hard target, due to the very nature of proving they posted disinformation with malicious intent, but law enforcement agencies should have the option to open investigations into sources of media such as this.
 
A

Asbel

Member
1.21Gigawatts said:
Fake News is when deliberately made up information is disguised as actual news with the intent to deceive.


Fake News ≠ biased news
Fake News ≠ honest mistakes in reporting
Fake News ≠ opinions we might not agree with
Fake News ≠ satire
Click to expand...

Yep, great post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Phil Spencer interview - Says that their intent is for all Xbox games, including Call of Duty, to be available on Xbox Game Pass Day One
2 3
102
5K
Kenneth Haight replied
Wo Long: Fallen Dynasty | Review Thread
Analysis Review 5 6 7 8 9
424
28K
ChoosableOne replied
Quantic Dream bosses successfully sue French newspaper Le Monde for libel
Drama Business Game Dev
3
1K
SlimeGooGoo replied
Obama tried to give Zuckerberg a wake-up call over fake news on Facebook
2 3
111
19K
Guy.brush replied
Big Business and Government: Grand conspiracy or ramblings of a mad man?
3
1K
Soodanim replied
Top Bottom