Fakenews from HuffPo

[Dill]

(12-20-2016, 09:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, why didn't you tell everyone that you have your own super special definition of the word?  See, I see the term fake and I interpret that to mean "not genuine".  When you report false information among factual information that, to me, would indicate "not genuine"  But you roll with your definition and we'll all stop bothering to discuss this topic with you.

You are speaking for "all" now?

Defining one's terms for discussion is one of the things people do to avoid miscommunication.
And which one of us has the "super special definition"?

Mine derives where the public discussion of fake news begun last month.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/12/07/how-the-war-against-fake-news-backfired/?utm_term=.587537df9b92

Fake news can refer to deliberately fabricated stories, often with the purpose of making money for the creators. (Think of those Macedonian teenagers looking to strike it rich on the gullibility of American audiences reading about politics.) It can also refer to comedy or satirical news, faked for the purposes of entertainment. Both of these types of stories are often shared across social media — and are taken as true by some readers. (The problem of what responsibility platforms such as Facebook have in creating algorithms that promote phony stories predates this election-induced panic, but it is central to the current discussion.)

But there has been a new development:

Fake news can now also refer to the phenomenon of a news source publishing something that is inaccurate but is still believed and shared by readers. This includes sites such as Gateway Pundit, which, in the weeks before the election, regularly published outright false stories that became talking points on the conservative Internet. And as the boundaries between “fake” and “unreliable” have become more permeable, conservatives have begun saying that the mainstream outlets they already don’t trust should be called “fake,” too.

How should someone who thinks words should have clear meaning respond to this? I choose to follow this advice, since it promises greater accuracy in reference and clarity in discussion:

Is this column or review or news report I disagree with fake news?
Not if it doesn’t meet the definition above. “Fake news” is not a one-size-fits-all rejoinder for editorial decision-making or reporting you disagree with Stick with “that’s not news”.

You are not required to follow this suggestion. Just know that I am. And this is the second time you have heard it, backed with links to responsible journalists trying to sort out fake from real news.

Now you have been doing your gol darndest to get me to come over and respond to this thread. I have done so.

Are you going to respond to the substantive post I have contributed or continue to fly off topic in a pique every time I post?