Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

gulliver

(13,186 posts)
Mon Nov 21, 2016, 11:35 PM Nov 2016

Is "fake news" really worse than "real news?"

"Real news" is crap. "Fake news" is also crap. The only difference is that the fake news doesn't have a factual basis. But that doesn't necessarily mean "real news" is better, not if you judge by effect.

First, look at the word "news." It's a fraudulent misnomer for what the product really is which is really more like "unusual things that happened recently." The vast majority of new things that happen aren't unusual. The "man bites dog" story bias of "news" means that a true story of a man biting a dog ironically damages our sense of reality with facts. It gives trivia a false sense of salience. It distorts our ability to distinguish the important from the unimportant.

The current style of news has ruined news. Like so much else in the media, the news has been gilded to death with multi-media FX clutter and "personality." I hate personality as much as Lou Grant hated spunk. I especially hate the faux variety of personality that we now get in news writing and "performance." Watch TV news on a slow or fast news day. Listen to news radio on a slow or fast news day. You'll see and hear just as much "personality" on the slow and fast news days. The personality, the tone, and the schedule are what define the product. The facts are just tossed in as they occur to tempt peoples' sweet tooth for variety.

There's kind of a sad irony to the movie, "Network," viewed forty years after it was in theaters. Its vision of a truly disgusting, out-of-control media meltdown has proven to be quaint by comparison to what we have now.

Gripe, gripe, gripe...I know. But would some people be so anxious about, say, Muslims if we had a rational sense of proportion? Heck, the bad guy Muslims like ISIS and the lone wolf dirtballs wouldn't be doing what they do if not for the media distorting the overall significance of isolated heinous acts to our daily lives. These few monsters who do these evil things aren't doing them because they feel like doing them. They are doing them to score eyeballs on the "Islam's Got Monsters" talent competition. The "real" news.

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Is "fake news" really worse than "real news?" (Original Post) gulliver Nov 2016 OP
Yes. Fake news is worse than the NYTimes. Absolutely, positively, yes. pnwmom Nov 2016 #1
That false equivalency is what Trump voters use to excuse themselves BainsBane Nov 2016 #2

pnwmom

(108,980 posts)
1. Yes. Fake news is worse than the NYTimes. Absolutely, positively, yes.
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 03:24 AM
Nov 2016

Think about it. Who wants us to believe there's no difference? Trump and his fascists.

https://www.cnet.com/how-to/how-to-avoid-getting-conned-by-fake-news-sites/

Who's writing this fake news?

According to a Buzzfeed story, young people in Macedonia created more than 100 pro-Trump websites to spread false news. The motive wasn't political; it was to make money off your clicks.

Maybe we should be glad they're not turning to cybercrime to capitalize on our collective naivete, like young people in other parts of Eastern Europe have done. Still, it's pretty strange to think that Macedonian website owners were gaming Google's or Facebook's ad programs to make money off fake-but-viral news stories.

BainsBane

(53,035 posts)
2. That false equivalency is what Trump voters use to excuse themselves
Tue Nov 22, 2016, 03:25 AM
Nov 2016

from not bothering to inform themselves.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Is "fake news" really wor...