This looks like a continuation of a long running theme in the media: how awful and terrible and threatening to democracy it is when Google and Facebook suddenly made it easy to be exposed to lots of alternative points of view on the same story.
The media have been going after Google News for years with various arguments. Now they're latching on to "Only human editors can ensure your news is not fake". I suspect it'll fail like all the rest unless they can convince governments to regulate, and even then maybe not as Germany and Spain's attempt to control Google News didn't work out.
At any rate, Facebook isn't in denial. They're talking about the problem and fixing it, which is probably quite easy to do algorithmically (once you've knocked off the existing sites, simply send sites that appear to be news but which are brand new through manual review).
American media still is in denial though. Other than a few articles blaming all their mistakes on polling companies, I haven't seen much self reflection amongst journalists on why their trust numbers are so low, why so many Americans have simply concluded they're hopelessly biased and tuned them out, or why it's tech companies that now control their traffic instead of themselves.
> how awful and terrible and threatening to democracy it is when Google and Facebook suddenly made it easy to be exposed to lots of alternative points of view on the same story
You are being sarcastic here but (imho) gossip, fake news, and echo chambers are really threatening democracy.
> I haven't seen much self reflection amongst journalists
The problem is that journalists are getting caught in a vicious circle. Either they present true news and have little viewers, or present gossip or echo what people want to hear and have lots of viewers.
Echo chambers? Would you lump existing media outlets into that bucket? I think if there's one thing that 2016 revealed very clearly it's the extent to which journalists tend to line up behind whatever the political elite groupthink is, regardless of how well it matches what the overall population thinks. The Guardian has become something of a joke paper - on the rare occasions these days that they open the comments the top rated comments are mostly giving them flak over the wildly extreme positions their journalists take.
How would we resolve this dispute? I don't think my views are extreme, nor does opinion polling indicate that they are.
I regularly read papers across the political spectrum: The Guardian, the Financial Times, the Economist, the Daily Mail, the Express, the Telegraph, and often stories from the New York Times and the Washington Post (I like news). That seems like a pretty broad reach. I don't think it's an echo chamber.
I also use Google News a lot. That throws up a pretty random selection of sources on whatever the topics of the day are.
The Guardian regularly runs articles by authors like these:
In Brexit Britain, being a foreigner marks me out as evil
Why the mediocre male's days may be numbered
After Brexit, a game plan for the EU: unleash Project Pain: Nobody wants to be vindictive, but maximum political and economic damage would stop other arsonists.
Hey, misogynist killjoys: stop denying that Hillary has made history
Why we need to lose biased words like 'mistress' for good
and from others there:
The far right tell us kindness is weakness. We can’t give in to that: Urging people to be something as squishy as ‘kind’ may seem childish. But compassion is a revolutionary tool that can steer people away from bigotry
The US will no longer feel like a haven for Jews under Trump
A win for Trump was a win for bigotry. Here’s how we resist him
I have no hesitation at all in describing these as extreme views, but these were just a random selection of headlines I pulled from their website in 90 seconds.
That's why we should avoid labels such as "extremist", "radical", "fringe" - they are deeply subjective.
Fun fact: Austria' Freedom Party's (invariably labeled as "fringe") presidential candidate came close to winning the election a few months ago. If you get close to 50% of all votes, you are not exactly fringe, are you?
> The problem is that journalists are getting caught in a vicious circle. Either they present true news and have little viewers, or present gossip or echo what people want to hear and have lots of viewers.
I think the problem lies in that the assumption that investigative journalism, of the kind that is vital to democracy, must be profitable. But why would that be the case? And if it cannot be profitable, should we not institute good journalism as a matter of public policy?
In other words, let's return PBS and NPR to their former funding levels, when they could afford to have actual journalists and newsrooms and operate somewhat independently of the market.
How to make people care about the truth is a matter for another discussion (and certainly not a problem in Facebook's charter).
Hold on. The NYT just admitted bias recently regarding their reporting on the election, and an opinion piece talks about 'Liberal Intolerance' in the NYT, but now FB is almost as culpable due to false stories? I still think there is a higher signal-to-noise ratio when there are many people able to debunk a piece on FB or other social media, than when a hardcopy, accepted as trusted source such as the NYT once was, posts a story.
The fly-over states were discounted by most media, and people are still reeling from the election results they can't believe. People raise the popular vote in political conversations, not realizing that almost all of Hillary's popular vote differential came from NY and CA, again urban coastal vs. the fly-over states. People are in denial about what other Americans aside from them felt about all of this.
I predicted a Trump victory in July and September publicly on Twitter, and I am no fan of Trump, or Hillary for that matter. People laughed at me. I was born and raised in a working-class neighborhood in Brooklyn, so it came from purely talking to other Americans in my travels in the US and overseas, and I am no journalist tasked to go out and get the Five Ws [1].
The fact that a lot of media didn't think Trump would win is unrelated to the fact that fake news is damaging to democracy.
Just like fake science is damaging to scientists. Fake scientific articles are read, quoted and shared through the scientific community and it can take a long time to weed out.
How many people still believe Obama is a muslim because they read it (repeatedly) on Facebook? I'm guessing millions.
The "curated news" is not a solution, its a bigger problem.
When you request top 10 voted posts thats what you get. Not the truth. If voters believe 1 like = 1 truth, then you have identified the problem with democracy that have always existed.
> Just like fake science is damaging to scientists. Fake scientific articles are read, quoted and shared through the scientific community and it can take a long time to weed out.
FB is only a platform for social media, not the source of news stories, so I found it irking they were calling FB to task on this.
The NYT claims to be a news journal, a source of news, and then openly admits bias. Fact-checking seems to be in question too. Maybe not fake news, but wishful news at best.
I think the purported liberal slant of the mainstream media is a separate (though related) issue from the blatantly-false news stories that come from both sides of the aisle, that permeate through social media platforms.
The suggestion that Facebook and other channels of distribution should filter "fake" or "bad" news is not well thought out. Why would we want a private entity have any say in what is being shared? We should be fighting for net neutrality, not for what amounts to censorship.
Fake news is a real problem, but this seems like an unfair no-win for Facebook from major media outlets. When they had more human editors on trending topics it was "Facebook is injecting their own bias into news and manipulating the public."
Now that it's more purely algorithmic it's "Facebook isn't policing content enough and making it too easy for fake outlets to manipulate the public."
I'm certain that when they follow up by cranking up machine learning to censor fake content it will be "algorithms don't stop everything fake and sometimes block real things, thus manipulating the public."
I still use Messenger and occasionally Groups (for events I don't plan) so I opted to block my newsfeed instead using a browser extension. I've found that to be a very manageable and in my experience healthy option.
There are also lots of fake articles from the alt-left being shared with millions in FB.
An example, is the foto of thousands of Albanian immigrants on a boat going to Italy in the 80's, being shared as being the foto of thousands of European refugees running away from the Nazis and going to North Africa in the 40's, that keeps resurfacing all the time.
Articles like this one from NyTimes, implying that this kind of stuff only favours the right are a big part of the problem. It passes a message that censorship is good, but only if it's applied solely to the right wing.
Facebook, Twitter and Google all pushing same agenda. Alternatives needed, services that are truly unopionated as they should be. Otherwise we all can watch CNN and believe all what they say.
Sounds like you didn't read the whole article, as it mentions anti-Trump fake news and then answers your question:
After the election, Mr. Zuckerberg claimed that the fake news was a problem on “both sides” of the race. There are, of course, viral fake anti-Trump memes, but reporters have found that the spread of false news is far more common on the right than it is on the left.
The Macedonian teenagers found this, too. They had experimented with left-leaning or pro-Bernie Sanders content, but gave up when they found it wasn’t as reliable a source of income as pro-Trump content. But even if Mr. Zuckerberg were right and fake news were equally popular on both sides, it would still be a profound problem.
I have no idea what this "news" site is, but I'm pretty sure that the US is not currently rushing to prepare for a North Korean nuclear missile launch.
I can help with that. I, like you, also thought that there would be no reason to, so why would they do it... But then I went and watched the actual Q&A recording that all of the "Trump wants to put all the Muslims into a database" claims came from and find that the claim is quite false. He never says it. He says something that when taken entirely out of context can be interpreted by someone with preconceived notions as meaning it, except that in context it is actually very clear that he's talking about something else. I don't like Trump, and I don't want him to be our President, but the amount of seemingly fabricated stories about him are upsetting.
The irony is that some of the NYT articles about Trump themselves constitute aggressive misinformation if not fake news. I'm thinking in particular about the hit piece they put out about his relationship with women.
Trump's statements are usually non-specific and often contradictory. He's made denials that go far beyond straining credulity.
Basically, I think it's fair to say that people aren't fabricating stories so much as grasping at straws. Much like his supporters.
The only real way to understand Trump is as a textbook case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Or maybe some surreal parody of NPD. Once you understand that his primary and in many cases sole motivation is self-aggrandizement and attention seeking[1], everything he says makes so much sense. Or rather, you stop searching for the earnest, substantive policies and opinions. He's alot like an adolescent in that regard--his opinions are based on an immature and highly self-referential worldview. Sometimes his points and counter-points seem well-grounded until you realize that he's literally parroting an argument he's read or heard elsewhere, without any serious attempt at critical assessment or application. The fact that they're all over the board (as opposed to consistently preferring a particular narrative) is only more evidence of this methodology. Again, it's basically the methodology of an adolescent.
You cannot identify anything concrete about Trump's policies, and you cannot predict what Trump will do, without understanding that. And once you do, you realize that you _still_ cannot identify or predict anything. You can't even predict whether he'll be a devastating president, become more popular than the second-coming of Christ, or fit somewhere in-between. I mean, by most definitions he's successful. That means something... I'm just not sure what.
The only thing you can say for certain is that people acting intelligently and honestly would never vote such a man into the Presidency. That he's President-elect is a devastating testament to a deep pathology in American politics and culture.
[1] I don't even mean to use those terms derisively. They just seem so apt and obvious and beyond dispute. And I'm not using them to imply he's good or bad or right or wrong. The only way to come close to understanding the man and his behavior is with an almost clinical detachment. A Trump presidency is like a natural, cosmic phenomenon. Even the word cataclysmic doesn't work because it implies some subjective value judgment. His eventual policy decisions can and will be judged. But the man himself and his words... there's nothing you can really say. Just like there's nothing you can really say when a small child surprises you with some facially sophisticated argument that he's just echoing. The statement and the thought process behind them are basically immune from meaningful criticism. Put another way, in some sense both the child and Trump lack capacity for the same kind or degree of culpability of a typical adult. Yes, normally selfishness is frowned upon; but if it's the product of an abnormal mind, there's no value judgment to be made.
"The only thing you can say for certain is that people acting intelligently and honestly would never vote such a man into the Presidency. That he's President-elect is a devastating testament to a deep pathology in American politics and culture."
I feel the same way about Hillary: She defended a rapist husband, used the government as her personal piggy bank, used the mainstream media as her attack dog, and conspired against all of her enemies, and tried to steal the white house.
We also have PC culture run amok. Trump is a big 'Fuck You' many intelligent Americans have been waiting for, for many years. It has nothing to do with racism, sexism, or xenophobia.
The saddest thing? The fact that Wikileaks had to bring many of this to light. Julian Assange still hasn't been heard from since his power was cut at the embassy.
The Clinton Foundation is known to have directly misappropriated government donations. Donors to the organization also seem to have received preferential treatment from the State Department:
Other major conflicts of interest involved Russia and Haiti. If you need direct evidence of Hillary's involvement, focus on the 33k emails she deleted AFTER receiving a Congressional subpoena, emails that were originally sent from a private server expressly to avoid public disclosure FOIA requirements.
I had to find the emails the first article references by myself because they didn't link to them. I was drawn to because the pull quotes sounded out of context, and they are. The emails referenced dont say nearly what the article claims, it's extremely unclear how they came to their conclusion.
The second article you cite expressly avoids saying any preferential treatment was received, and notes the donation was unsolicited.
What major conflicts of interest involved Russia and Haiti? Both of those are a contradiction in terms - at what point would Clinton have multiple interests in them?
The 33k emails are gone, so I can't read them. You note they show her direct involvement. Direct involvement in what? How do you have access to the emails? Have you considered leaking them?
This is hilarious. Bill Clinton's right-hand man accuses Chelsea of misappropriating Clinton Foundation resources to pressure her into stopping her investigation into the way he handled Foundation finances and you think his accusation is "out of context" and "extremely unclear". It is precisely the context of the emails that make it so clear.
> The second article ... notes the donation was unsolicited.
And you apparently can't distinguish between a journalist reporting a fact ("Clinton Foundation admits breaking ethical rules") and the same journalist attributing a claim to a third party (yes, the "claim" that the donation was unsolicited comes directly from the Clinton Foundation).
You can Google Uranium One for Russia and earthquake recovery contracts for Haiti if you really want to dig into the patterns of criminal behavior, but I wouldn't worry about it. The FBI is confirmed to have multiple ongoing investigations into the Clinton Foundation. And we know for a fact that Clinton intentionally deleted work-related emails after getting subpoenaed by Congress, which is two felonies right there (obstruction of an investigation, and destruction of evidence). So throw out the claims that these are "extraordinary claims" with "no sourcing"... it's highly suggestive evidence of corruption with documented attempts to obstruct investigative work that continues to justify extensive Federal investigations.
If I find the emails Hillary put through the shredder I will let you know. Fortunately, there is enough to put her in jail based on the materials that have already been leaked.
You're iterating your talking points without explaining the previous state of them, so it's very tiring, so I have no interest in participating. None of my questions have been answered :( Your post reads as picking at my the wording of my questions because you feel it betrays sympathy for people who disagree with you, and it's bundled with even more extraordinary claims.
Before reading the following, please consider that I genuinely wish you well and think you're making an honest effort at staying out of ideological swamps. There's no need to feel that I'm judging you or your choice of sourcing, I'm only curious about this subject and genuinely want to learn more, so I'm trying to find more source material.
When no charges are bought after 4 years under a president and attorney general who have been thirsting to try her for anything, I hope you reconsider the fever swamp of information we've been discussing. These...news...sites contradict their own sources, and from the research I've done and the form of your answers, it seems impossible to find justification for their extraordinary claims.
> Your post reads as picking at my the wording of my questions
Nope, my complaint is that you write-off Hillary's destruction of federal records, multiple active criminal investigations, and suspicious evidence of pay-to-play (in direct violation of her ethics agreement) as nothing warranting suspicion. And then accuse anyone who points out these flagrant breaches of public trust of being mired in a "fever swamp" and making "extraordinary claims" instead of factual observations.
It is certainly possible that Clinton is guilty of no further crimes than those which have already been revealed, although I wouldn't be money on it. With that said, I'm glad to hear you support the appointment of a special prosecutor to look into HRC and the Clinton Foundation, and view it as an exonerating step that will redeem Hillary's questionable political legacy.
Where do authoritative sources come from? Government? Mainstream media?
I think "personal piggy bank" might refer to Clinton foundation donations and collusions, but don't expect it to be too easy to find that information, no time will be spend producing fancy interactive info-graphics to make that easier to understand...
During the election, there were countless stories nearly every day. Trump used all of the hyperbole and fake news articles about him to destroy the competition.
These articles were written by the left-leaning mainstream media and repeated ad nauseam over social media.
I see people that still believe that Trump is going to deport all of the 'Brown people'. There isn't one instance where he said this. The media created this fear through lies and propaganda and made Trump out to be a monster.
They are mostly to blame for all of the violence and protests we are seeing today.
But a Trump win still won't force them to tell us the truth. I'm just glad that the American people did.
In that case it enforces your opinion. So it's still of influence.
There are however a lot of votes that decide last minute. There are also voters that have decided, but can't be bothered to vote. In that case it might change and opinion.
You can't say that it's impossible for fake news to influence anyone. How many people believe that Obama is a muslim because they read it (repeatedly) on Facebook? I'm guessing millions.
