12-21-2016, 12:20 PM
(12-21-2016, 03:40 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well, kind of... here's the thing. I'm sympathetic with your stance (although both of you could tone it down a notch, but none of my business). The problem is that by calling HuffPost "fake news" you throw different things into one pot. And then the claim "well, it's just the same here or there" might derive, and that is actually not true.
There is a difference betwee biased, opinionated, badly researched articles and "fake news". First, there is responsibility for what you write in a newspaper, something that does not apply for the Macedonian fake news producer who produces made-up clickbait. Second, I figure you have to see some kind of difference between exaggerating some underlying truth (up to actually being factually incorrect) and completely inventing certain events (like mass rapes, like police covering the deeds) where there is not a single layer of truth behind it.
There is a "layer of truth" when calling our FPÖ a Nazi party. I do not think it's an accurate description and some claims are factually wrong, but it's not entirely out of the blue.
This being said. Please don't take that as me defending HuffPost articles. I'm not. I hate the left-wing media for distorting the truth, and I hate them for providing such fine examples. It makes really for a legit argument for the "other side" by simply saying "look, they are not better, they manipulate just the same and then they ride the holier than you attitude". And it IS a legit argument, no way around that, and very persuasive. Nothing gained for the own cause.
Still, the term "fake news" is kind of reserved for a development that is actually different. By definition of the term, that is.
All excellent points (take notes Dill). As stated before I'm a huge proponent of words having a definition and being properly used via that definition. If the term fakenews is defined as the stories made up whole cloth, in your example by kids in Macedonia, then no, neither HuffPo nor Breitbart peddle in fakenews. To me, the term applies anytime a news article perverts or distorts facts in an attempt to influence opinion rather than to inform. How things are phrased goes a long way towards this. Including quotes from people in which their opinions are presented as fact goes even further. Either a troy is hard news or it's an editorial, mixing the two generates a fake news story IMO. Whether we want that kind of story to be included in the fakenews category is yet another.
Quote:Or asked differently, would you call FOX, Breitbart et al. "fake news" too?
- If you do, then the term loses its current meaning and we have to invent a new word for the Macedonian fake stories (instead of "fake news") and nothing is gained.
- If you don't, then I believe you do not have a case. HuffPost articles are not disproportionally more opinionated or biased then Breitbart articles.
Which again goes back to definition. We have, unfortunately, created the worst kind of debate here, one over semantics. However, you do agree with my original point 100%, that HuffPo and Breitbart are two sides of the same coin. This point was the entire thrust of this thread so I'm glad to see it has been made, to rational people.
