News:

if there were no need for 'engineers from the quantum plenum' then we should not have any unanswered scientific questions.

Main Menu

On truth, fake news and misleading the public.

Started by Dave, September 17, 2018, 10:55:55 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Dave

I am putting this here because, although the phrase "fake news" seems to have political origins and is, sort of, a matter for philosophical debate (maybe even psychological or psychiatric analysis), as currently used it has, of course, existed since the first person decided to bend the facts to meet his, or her, agenda. The media, since the first ever pamphlett, has expanded the scope and magnitude of this phenomena. It is a kind of psychological manipulation, playing on the fears and prejudices of "the masses" to gain their sympathy, their votes or induce them to take some form of action.

In terms of current politics it came to the surface in 2016 - a momentous year in American history:

QuoteIt was mid-2016, and Buzzfeed's media editor, Craig Silverman, noticed a funny stream of completely made-up stories that seemed to originate from one small Eastern European town.

"We ended up finding a small cluster of news websites all registered in the same town in Macedonia called Veles," Silverman recalls.

He and a colleague started to investigate, and shortly before the US election they identified at least 140 fake news websites which were pulling in huge numbers on Facebook.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-42724320

Politics being a dominant force in forming the opinion of the public, whether they follow it objectively, analysing each event critically, or just read papers, watch TV or are social media addicts and believe and react thoughtlessly to what they see and hear - or are somewhere between. And, being a long term media manipulator, the currect American president has, of course, taken every advantage he can to disparage his oponents - of every type via the media.

The following was generated by one of those disparaged oponents, The Washington Post:

QuotePresident Trump has made 4,229 false or misleading claims in 558 days

Because of summer vacation schedules, we had fallen a month behind in updating The Fact Checker's database that analyzes, categorizes and tracks every suspect statement uttered by the president.

It turns out that's when the president decided to turn on the spigots of false and misleading claims. As of day 558, he's made 4,229 Trumpian claims — an increase of 978 in just two months.

That's an overall average of nearly 7.6 claims a day.

Link added later:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/08/01/president-trump-has-made-4229-false-or-misleading-claims-in-558-days/?utm_term=.581b8ec8b92f

Short of reading and checking every one I cannot swear as to the veracity of this figure - but my personal biases (born of Trump's more obviously outrageous claims) tend to persuade me to give it a qualified acceptance.

This thread was inspired by the first of a series of short programmes on Sir Francis Bacon (1561 - 1626) BBC Radio 4. The first English essayist and, after Montaigne, arguably the world's second in that specific form. The first programme was his essay, "On Truth". Bacon's words have very strong echoes today.

The presenter offered the above figure, 7.6 misleading or untrue statements per day, as a modern example. However she did not qualify the figure or offer the possibility of where it might lie on the fake - fact spectrum.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bjz95t

Just for a change I will link to a video of the essay that can be read or listened to rather than a purely written form
https://youtu.be/PZpY087ocmU
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Asmodean

I think I'll be invading this thread some time after work today.

For now, here is something interesting to consider; fake news in politics is good and well, but have you read about shit like mr. Musk's Hyperloop project in the recent years..? Or, for that matter, a lot of other "viral tech?" The levels of scientific illiteracy among science correspondents is staggering, and the willingness to put up corrections and withdrawals - less than underwhelming.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Dave

Quote from: Asmodean on September 17, 2018, 11:32:38 AM
I think I'll be invading this thread some time after work today.

For now, here is something interesting to consider; fake news in politics is good and well, but have you read about shit like mr. Musk's Hyperloop project in the recent years..? Or, for that matter, a lot of other "viral tech?" The levels of scientific illiteracy among science correspondents is staggering, and the willingness to put up corrections and withdrawals - less than underwhelming.

I can agree with you regarding the average scientific correspondent, however there are some good ones - the difference seems to be betweens those who write their own views of  new science and those who present the words of the people actually doing the work (and even some of those are a bit dodgy) and elecit a bit more from them.

As for the self-promoters; I wait to see if their promotions have, at least, some by-products in terms of proper science, or even in everyday industry. But I could cry when I think of all the really necessary resesrch and improvement needed.

But, once again, barring genuine whistle blowers or fact based revelations, one has to be careful of what one hears. I think the likes of Mr Musk are a special case and the details of his projects, as opposed to his words promoting them, could be a good subject for another thread. I intensely dislike Microsoft but have achieved a degree of respect for Mr Gates (and his missus) in terms as to how he seems to be using his money.

Add to "fake news" tge phenomeha of "inaccurate news", even the once hallowed BBC tends to offer slightly different facts - especially numbers - on their various news services. If ever an organisation needed a totally centralised news editing and presenting service, with all reading from the same fact sheet, it is the BBC and other major global news broadcasters.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Bluenose

Quite apart from the current crop of deliberately false information being spread around as news, I have little faith in the media.  Every time I have had personal knowledge of something reported in the media they have gotten at last one important detail completely wrong.  Even when I've been involved in things and given the press a written press release they still manage to get basic details, and even the spelling of names, wrong.  Therefore if they manage to do this about things I know about, I have no faith in their accuracy about things I do not know.  I'm not even sure this is a matter of lack of care, although I'm sure that plays a part.  Rather I think it is a matter of basic competence, or rather the lack of it.  I knew a few people back in school who went into journalism and let's just say they were not the sharpest tools in the box. I take everything I see in the press/media with at least a grain of salt.
+++ Divide by cucumber error: please reinstall universe and reboot.  +++

GNU Terry Pratchett


Dave

Quote from: Bluenose on September 17, 2018, 01:22:44 PM
Quite apart from the current crop of deliberately false information being spread around as news, I have little faith in the media.  Every time I have had personal knowledge of something reported in the media they have gotten at last one important detail completely wrong.  Even when I've been involved in things and given the press a written press release they still manage to get basic details, and even the spelling of names, wrong.  Therefore if they manage to do this about things I know about, I have no faith in their accuracy about things I do not know.  I'm not even sure this is a matter of lack of care, although I'm sure that plays a part.  Rather I think it is a matter of basic competence, or rather the lack of it.  I knew a few people back in school who went into journalism and let's just say they were not the sharpest tools in the box. I take everything I see in the press/media with at least a grain of salt.

I know how you feel, Bluenose. I once was the local "correspondent" for news in my village for a local paper (when I was also the editor of the village mag). Things got changed or left out. Then we had a village meeting with our county rep. Reading the account of it in that paper their reporter was obviously at a very different meeting. Oh, and they accepted an article on a local archaeological dig from me, added a couple of jokey sentences, then published it (otherwise verbatim) under their feature editor's name. I suppose it was a sort of backhanded compliment he felt it worthy of his name but . . .
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Asmodean

I think I already made "this post" before, but it's worth re-making since the point of it is a part of my planned Invasion™ of this thread.

Back when I was young, and we're not talking about all too many years, I found myself politically left-leaning (Note that in Norway, I'm centre-right to right. The scale I'm talking on, is more suited for the Anglosphere) Not a far-leftie, by any reasonable measure, nor one of socialist variety. Still, my political compass pointed in a decent South-Westerly direction.

One thing I remember back from those days, was that I trusted certain mainstream mass media outlets to a far higher degree than I do today. (Not talking about reporting on a cow farting - if unclear, this is about social and political issues) Then, The Culture War™ happened, and while my political views changed little, much of the "civilised world" seemed to have shifted its political discourse so far left, that over the course of some otherwise unremarkable months, I was pretty much ousted from the left by an angry mob of former friends and acquaintances calling me various forms of nazi and/or racist and/or misogynist for not towing the Progressive™ line. I will resist going on a tirade about the unrelenting stupidity of those people specifically, and loathsomeness of the SJWs in general, as they are neither who nor what I am talking about here, today.

Being driven from my lefty perch, I started to get a slightly different perspective on news coming from alternative sources. I pretty much always made a point of exposing myself to counter-arguments, and now, I was motivated to accelerate the process. What I saw, was that I probably was all too eager to dismiss sources (Like Tucker Carlson, for instance) for political reasons, or just unable to hear what they were saying from outside the walls of my echo chamber. This is an important point, as I wonder whether huge numbers of other people have much the same problem when it comes to deeming news as real or fake.

These days, I try to separate the concept of fake news from just biased. With 15+% of all Norwegian journalists polling Marxist (!), and the vast majority being what by the standard described above would fall under Socialist far-left, I think I would have to declare "all" locally generated news fake unless I did that.

So what's the difference? I think there are several ways, in which to draw your lines here. Mine hug the definition of fact where applicable, and objectivity when dealing with non-factual issues (Opinions), so I consider everything not factually accurate to be fake news. Further, I consider any story which does not exist outside a political agenda to be fake news (Think a large chunk of early Trump-Russia conspiracy, esp. CNN), as I do any story which does not exist beyond some outrage/smear machine of the moment (Jordan Peterson is only Alt-Right if you deliberately ignore the meaning of the term "Alt-Right."). If it's not fake, it's just biased. You'd be hard pressed to find something "just factual" in this day and age outside STEM textbooks.

What separates fake from biased then, is that fake news is used as a vessel for pushing an agenda through lies, hit pieces and outrage campaigns masquerading as Truth™, while merely biased news presents the side of the story most aligned with the journalist's lens.


Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Dave

The Asmo wrote:

QuoteThese days, I try to separate the concept of fake news from just biased.

Yes, a delicate line to walk. Biased viewpoints are acceptable providing they do not bend the truth - though ommission, attempting to hide or ignore the truth without making untrue statements, can be as bad. The truth can also be presented in such a way as to make it valueless, even when it is critical.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Asmodean

Quote from: Dave on September 17, 2018, 03:04:52 PM
Yes, a delicate line to walk. Biased viewpoints are acceptable providing they do not bend the truth - though ommission, attempting to hide or ignore the truth without making untrue statements, can be as bad. The truth can also be presented in such a way as to make it valueless, even when it is critical.

Indeed. I think bias is OK as long as it is owned and open. Think Tucker Carlson. What little I have seen of his show, I have not found one instance of him being fake (as opposed to whoever he's interviewing. Ever see that thing with that intersectionalist Muslim woman? The one who's "black before she's American?" just a example, what popped into my head) Tucker is biased as old fuck, but he wears it on his sleeve. Another good example would be that show Penn Jillette did back in the day... Not the... "Bullshit," it was called. It was not so much news as it was debunking Teh Stoopid™, but the same principle applies. In fact, most talk shows, what most people seem to get most of their news from, are OK like that. They wear their biases on their sleeve and they try not to deliberately misrepresent their opposition. Can't ask for much more. Still, some of them... Mmh... To put it this way, I had a lot more respect for Bill Maher when he was a cynical-ass-sceptic-prick. Now, though... Well, last I saw him, he suffered terribly from Trump Derangement Syndrome and Russia conspiracies. It pains me to say it, but when it comes to facts, I trust John Oliver more.


In any case, this was just an aside for my part. It's just good to have a good ramble on this sort of topic.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

No one

People are dumb, lazy, useless meat sacks. They'll follow any kind of lead, as long as they don't have to think!

Velma

Quote from: Dave on September 17, 2018, 03:04:52 PM
The Asmo wrote:

QuoteThese days, I try to separate the concept of fake news from just biased.

Yes, a delicate line to walk. Biased viewpoints are acceptable providing they do not bend the truth - though ommission, attempting to hide or ignore the truth without making untrue statements, can be as bad. The truth can also be presented in such a way as to make it valueless, even when it is critical.
That is all very true. One antidote to that is to make sure your news sources are reliable. Another is to get your news from multiple sources. As an American, it is quite easy for me to find a great number of reliable news sources based outside the US. It is always fascinating to see yourself through the eyes of another. There are also a number of US-based sources that are typically reliable. Although, even if a given source is typically reliable, it is always a good idea to get your news from multiple sources.

When it comes to bias, I am more willing to accept it in an opinion piece or commentary, less so if the item is presented as a supposedly accurate account of events. I know it is next to impossible to get rid of it completely, but you can screen for it and avoid sources that are so biased as to be useless. You could not pay me to watch Fox "News," which is little more than a mouthpiece for the lunatic wing of the Republican party. However, I will gladly get news from sources such as Reuters, The New York Times, National Public Radio, The Hill, and the Wall Street Journal.
Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of the astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy.~Carl Sagan

Dave

Quote from: Velma on September 17, 2018, 07:47:11 PM
Quote from: Dave on September 17, 2018, 03:04:52 PM
The Asmo wrote:

QuoteThese days, I try to separate the concept of fake news from just biased.

Yes, a delicate line to walk. Biased viewpoints are acceptable providing they do not bend the truth - though ommission, attempting to hide or ignore the truth without making untrue statements, can be as bad. The truth can also be presented in such a way as to make it valueless, even when it is critical.
That is all very true. One antidote to that is to make sure your news sources are reliable. Another is to get your news from multiple sources. As an American, it is quite easy for me to find a great number of reliable news sources based outside the US. It is always fascinating to see yourself through the eyes of another. There are also a number of US-based sources that are typically reliable. Although, even if a given source is typically reliable, it is always a good idea to get your news from multiple sources.

When it comes to bias, I am more willing to accept it in an opinion piece or commentary, less so if the item is presented as a supposedly accurate account of events. I know it is next to impossible to get rid of it completely, but you can screen for it and avoid sources that are so biased as to be useless. You could not pay me to watch Fox "News," which is little more than a mouthpiece for the lunatic wing of the Republican party. However, I will gladly get news from sources such as Reuters, The New York Times, National Public Radio, The Hill, and the Wall Street Journal.

Yes, coroboration is sensible, providing you are not relying on sources sharing a common syndicate! Reuters I trust, they use prime sources and seem to chose their correspondents very carefully. There was a, better in sone ways, account of the Washinton Post's resesrch but I chose the prime source - their Fact Checker is a great service.

And I just noticed that I forgot to link the article I quoted, here it is:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/08/01/president-trump-has-made-4229-false-or-misleading-claims-in-558-days/?utm_term=.581b8ec8b92f
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Asmodean

I think it may be a little dangerous to just trust Reuters too.

This is kind of my point in the fake newscape; If you care about an issue, you have to try and verify even the best of them, especially if you are to act on it in one way or another. Fact checkers are all good, but they too may only give you half a story (Or rather, whether the half-story you got from the media, was factual or not)


Me, I try to assume that the dissenting views have a point, until thoroughly debunked.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Dave

Quote from: Asmodean on September 18, 2018, 08:57:03 AM
I think it may be a little dangerous to just trust Reuters too.

This is kind of my point in the fake newscape; If you care about an issue, you have to try and verify even the best of them, especially if you are to act on it in one way or another. Fact checkers are all good, but they too may only give you half a story (Or rather, whether the half-story you got from the media, was factual or not)


Me, I try to assume that the dissenting views have a point, until thoroughly debunked.

Then there is no trustworthy source, even your own perspective may put emotional or other overtones on what you observe with your own eyes.

Considering motive: what is a politician's motive? If he/she qualifies for that title (which itself can be a subjective view) then it will be some form of manipulation in favour of an ideology - the very substance of politics - and not necessarily (perhaps exceedingly rarely) in favour of the truth.

Reuters, for e.g., is a commercial organisation in the final analysis, it has to make money to survive. In its field integrity is impirtant, if a news organisation is repeatedly found to be wanting it may only be used by those who also are found wanting. But, in the end, even if it puts no deliberate bias on its output it is only as good as its reporters, editors and policies - all relying on the fallibility of people.

So, though I think Reuters is more trustworthy than some it can still only be a qualified trust.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Tom62

I get more and more the feeling that the news is no longer about facts and reliable information, but about opinions and stirring up feelings.
The universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on government contract.
Robert A. Heinlein

Dave

Quote from: Tom62 on September 19, 2018, 05:37:15 PM
I get more and more the feeling that the news is no longer about facts and reliable information, but about opinions and stirring up feelings.

Youe feeling could well be founded in fact. Once the media reported news, maybe with some invedtigation, then opinionated on it in the editorial(s). Now they do seem to generate it as well, or at least inflate things to pander to their perception of public opionion.

But, as No-one so often reminds us, people are often stupid en masse, easily led.

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74