NYT calls out FR for spreading fake news. Does DU?

[nolabear]

I have to admit I laughed over this story about how one misguided tweet by a Trumpster went viral and became "NEWS!" particularly since FR got a mention for sprained the hysteria. But I got to thinking. I THINK we're pretty good about not spreading those things but I don't keep up like some folks do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/business/media/how-fake-news-spreads.html

[LonePirate]

1. RWers spread fake news because they want it to be reality even if they recognize it is not

They spread it and share it enough times in hopes that it does become true. Once a critical threshold has been reached, it becomes "true" for the right because why would so many people intentionally spread lies? Fake news resembles religion in that regard where people believe it once it has been communicated enough times.

The left also shares plenty of fake news (The Onion and Borowitz, for example). However, most of the left recognize it as satire or fake or for entertainment purposes only. Fake news on the left does not become gospel like it does for those on the right.

[nolabear]

4. I'm not so sure it's that simple.

I agree some on the right deliberately spread things that support their POV, but I think some on the left do too. Most of them, and those of us that do, too, just want very much to share things that delight or disturb us about these weird political times and fall prey. I know I try to check things out always but sometimes have an itchy trigger finger.

[Skinner]

2. I think we are not immune to fake news.

I think the real problem on DU is not outright falsehoods, but rather wishful thinking. People are not very skeptical when it comes to information they want to believe is true.

On the other hand, we do have many members here who care about accuracy, and eventually the most egregious falsehoods posted in OPs will get corrected in the replies. But it is pretty rare for the person who posted those false OPs to actually take down the false info once it gets corrected. I have myself posted corrections to false information on a number of occasions, but that doesn't make the OP go away.

When we wrote our new rules back in June, we seriously considered extending the "No kooky, extremist, or hate content" rule to include "No outright falsehoods." But we decided against it because we were concerned that such a rule would be used to remove factually correct posts that go against what people want to hear.

[nolabear]

5. Thanks, Skinner. I know I trust DU a lot and appreciate the efforts at accuracy.

There's so MUCH that comes across the "wires" that it's hard to sort things out. And I agree about the wishful thinking.

[Ms. Toad]

7. I'm not sure what goes on here is so different from the wishful thinking of the guy

who posted the story about busing people to rallies.

Personally, I wish you had included "No outright falsehoods."

[Ms. Toad]

3. Unfortunately, we do a fair amount.

I correct it when I see it and, unfortunately, sometimes get some pretty snarky comments back mostly along the lines of, "who cares," it's Trump (or the target of the day) we're talking about.

I don't think the rate at which we spread fake news rivals the right, but we're far from pristine.

[nolabear]

6. It's a dilemma we have to watch. Even doing the corrections is a positive step.

I don't know about you but I have a lot of respect for anyone who posts and then takes the time to correct it.

[11 Bravo]

9. I was right! I just KNEW that if I scanned the entire post ...

I would find that Jim Hoft (AKA "The dumbest Man on the Internet&quot had swallowed this bullshit hook, line, and sinker!

[LAS14]

10. I read the article, but couldn't figure out what FR was. Can you help me?

[Yonnie3]

12. It's Free Republic a forum for conservatives, more info in link below

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Republic

[nolabear]

13. Thanks. I posted and then life happened.

Easy to assume everyone knows.

[marybourg]

11. The left has frequently been

guilty of "stirring the pot"; recounting an event truthfully, but leaving out, or subtly shading a fact, to make it seem an outrageous violation of someone's rights for the purpose of whipping up indignation against the establishment.

When folks rail against the left, including many centrist and even left-leaning Dems, this tendency if often the crux of the complaints. It goes to undermine the credibility of all of us, even if it's not as egregious as many of the truth-twistings of the right. I see it here on DU from time to time, and when I'm in a position to point out another take on the story, I do.

[bhikkhu]

14. Generally doesn't happen here

If news isn't backed up by facts, its usually called out as fake even if it supports our side or derides the other. I fact-check things regularly, and I've never had a problem delivering the bad news that a story is phony. Here its a matter of being polite, including sources, and recognizing the good intentions of the re-poster.

On the other hand, there are many things that are more or less immune to fact-checking; some plain rants "I think this or that", and then "so and so think this or intended that". I tend to pass by any article trying to tell me what someone else is thinking. First, you don't know what someone is really thinking, and second, what someone is thinking is irrelevant. I care what people do.

I'd give the DU main boards a B+ on sticking to the facts and avoiding fake news. In the groups, more like a B-, as small selections of like-minded people are less likely to question each other.

On edit, Facebook gets an F, as neither they nor the posters there showed more than a passing interest in whether something was true or not in the last election.

.

[nolabear]

15. Good assessment. Thanks.