12-21-2016, 12:31 AM
(12-20-2016, 10:28 PM)Dill Wrote: You are speaking for "all" now?
Kind of an odd statement for you to make considering I was responding to your doing exactly what you just accused me of doing.
Quote: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"?
You?
Quote: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
You mean from the super unbiased Washington Post?
Quote: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.)
You do notice the word "can" in the first sentence right? Would not an accurate definition of fake news be a story whose intent is not to inform but to influence opinion through the mixing of fact and opinion? Maybe done is such a way that the less discerning reader would have difficulty separating the two? Yah oder nein?
Quote: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.
So fake stories are "fake news" but partially fake stories are not?
Quote: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”.
Editorials absolutely. Since no one here has argued that editorials, which, by definition, are opinion I'm not sure what your point is. Would you agree that editorializing in a hard news article is a bad idea, possibly leading to deliberate misinformation?
Quote:You are not required to follow this suggestion.
Oh, thank Glob!
Quote: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.
Wait, what? You posted one link from a clearly biased source. How is this an iron clad mic drop?
Quote:Now you have been doing your gol darndest to get me to come over and respond to this thread. I have done so.
If by that you mean calling out your erroneous claims then sure.
Quote: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?
Gooby please, I answer each of your posts point by point. Merely declaring that I dodge your points does not make it so. Also, pique? You'd be hard pressed to find one occasion of my becoming truly irritated with you. After all I deal with the less intelligent for a living, you're hardly a burden by comparison.
