Fake news

[Giraffe]

Who do YOU trust to hear the truth about stuff?

I've got to the point where unless I hear the whole interview/press conference/footage I don't trust a report from the media. Whoever covers it from tv/radio/newspaper they always pick and chose what to report on, often without the context.

And I don't think this is a new thing either, I'll never forget how they all reported the Goldstone York "riot" just to suit their anti-football fan Euro 96 agenda. Complete nonsense.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I was told by my Dad, donkey's years ago, never believe what you read in the papers. There's nothing new, under the sun.

I also complained to the BBC about their coverage of Calais in chaos when immigrants were supposed to be burning tyres on the roads, when it was striking ferry workers who were doing it. I didn't receive a reply from my email.
I knew this for a fact because I was in Calais at the time.

 

[clippedgull]

I don't trust anyone or anything!

 

[Randsta]

All news has some element of truth who care's what is real today it seems like it's just what people "feel" and "think" is all that matters!

 

[Hotchilidog]

I definitely double check more stories now. It is frightening at how this 'post-truth' world is evolving. I find most mainstream news impossibe to watch and treat the internet 'news' sites with a huge pinch of salt.

 

[nicko31]

Thankfully we have Ofcom that does force a factual basis for news reporting in broadcast across our shores. Without it you end up with opinion based reporting, that the difference between Sky News UK and Fox News US

To have no bias at all its almost impossible, the BBC for example for criticised from left and right in their quest to demonstrate impartiality

 

[beorhthelm]

And I don't think this is a new thing either,

it isn't. you'd read the same news event in the Guardian and Telegraph and have a completely differing view. and likewise both will report on favorite issues with report highlighting their (or theri readerships) preferred angle. this is not fake news. its biased, misreporting, but not strictly fake.

fake news is when you say black is white, you've had the largest inauguration crowd, blame immigrants for event that didnt happen or use engineered "grass roots" fears to deliver policies. its borderline conspiracy theory, often just the other side of that line. and its notable that those loudest at complaining about fake news are those that have used it, since they are familar with the practice they assume its being against them.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

it isn't. you'd read the same news event in the Guardian and Telegraph and have a completely differing view. and likewise both will report on favorite issues with report highlighting their (or theri readerships) preferred angle. this is not fake news. its biased, misreporting, but not strictly fake.

fake news is when you say black is white, you've had the largest inauguration crowd, blame immigrants for event that didnt happen or use engineered "grass roots" fears to deliver policies. its borderline conspiracy theory, often just the other side of that line. and its notable that those loudest at complaining about fake news are those that have used it, since they are familar with the practice they assume its being against them.

It used to be called propaganda.

 

[sparkie]

An old article about fake news.

I like the last sentence

"And if this was simply a 21st-century update of that classic example of “reflexive control”, inducing your enemy to do what you want him to – then, I wondered, was this essay, the one you are reading, part of the plan?"

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/apr/09/kremlin-hall-of-mirrors-military-information-psychology

 

[brightn'ove]

it isn't. you'd read the same news event in the Guardian and Telegraph and have a completely differing view. and likewise both will report on favorite issues with report highlighting their (or theri readerships) preferred angle. this is not fake news. its biased, misreporting, but not strictly fake.

fake news is when you say black is white, you've had the largest inauguration crowd, blame immigrants for event that didnt happen or use engineered "grass roots" fears to deliver policies. its borderline conspiracy theory, often just the other side of that line. and its notable that those loudest at complaining about fake news are those that have used it, since they are familar with the practice they assume its being against them.

Yep. The Donald et al have hijacked the term. Fake news is Breitbart and infowars. Representing fiction as fact is fake news, bias is not.

 

[Petee]

The Sun/Daily Mail/Daily Express - If it's in the newspaper, it must be true!

 

[Biscuit Barrel]

Who do YOU trust to hear the truth about stuff?

I've got to the point where unless I hear the whole interview/press conference/footage I don't trust a report from the media. Whoever covers it from tv/radio/newspaper they always pick and chose what to report on, often without the context.

And I don't think this is a new thing either, I'll never forget how they all reported the Goldstone York "riot" just to suit their anti-football fan Euro 96 agenda. Complete nonsense.

The Daily Mail.

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

NSC is my place to get real, genuine news.

Everything you read on here is 100% truth.

Except this post.

 

[Machiavelli]

it isn't. you'd read the same news event in the Guardian and Telegraph and have a completely differing view. and likewise both will report on favorite issues with report highlighting their (or theri readerships) preferred angle. this is not fake news. its biased, misreporting, but not strictly fake.

fake news is when you say black is white, you've had the largest inauguration crowd, blame immigrants for event that didnt happen or use engineered "grass roots" fears to deliver policies. its borderline conspiracy theory, often just the other side of that line. and its notable that those loudest at complaining about fake news are those that have used it, since they are familar with the practice they assume its being against them.

Now, unusually, I agree with your second paragraph here (not convinced by the first: The Guardian and Telegraph might report the same story, and focus on the same facts, but will put a different interpretation or emphasis on them; they might also select different stories to highlight).

PS you are still welcome to respond to the significant healthcare facts that I posted on that NHS thread -- it ought to be an open goal for you, as you claim that you work in healthcare metrics; I'm just an interested onlooker who wants to preserve -- and therefore defend -- the NHS.

 

[Machiavelli]

The BBC attempts to achieve impartiality, but never achieves it. This is because it has to operate within an extant hegemony which has a particular interpretation (liberal and western would be the best description of this). The difficulty of achieving such impartiality has been heightened over recent decades with the emergence of alternative global/regional news media (e.g. Al-Jazeera), and the Internet and other social media. Much of the latter is a cesspit which is a key reason why we have our current political situation, although Wikipedia does a much better job than most key players.
My favourite source of news remains C4 News.

 

[BBassic]

I tend to read multiple sources and then make my mind up from there.

It's never been a good idea to get all of your news from one source but now it's even more problematic because of general inability to trust one source over another.

BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, Reuters, Associated Press.

From those I feel I get a reasonably balanced mix.

 

[Fungus]

NSC is my place to get real, genuine news.

Everything you read on here is 100% truth.

Except this post.

Actually, NSC is a pretty good place, as long as you're a bit cynical.

Because so many people post, important news stories get picked up quickly, and you get to see how they develop over time.

If you've been on NSC long enough, you get to know who has an axe to grind on which subjects, and who is fairly balanced.

Importantly, you also get exposed to a wide variety of views, which you probably won't get from a single newspaper or TV channel.

But you won't get the depth of detail and background that newspapers provide.

 

[Rod Marsh]

Reuters do an excellent job, the news/media is always impartially delivered. The company holds very high standards with regards to this. I worked there for 15 years so can testify to this. There have been a couple of instances where this wasn't the case over the years but considering the huge number of journalists employed I think they do an excellent job.

 

[Baldseagull]

Rolling news has made it worse, news channels now so desperate to be first to report a fact, that they do not check that it is a fact, and many of these incorrect reports are never retracted.

 

[Fungus]

Rolling news has made it worse, news channels now so desperate to be first to report a fact, that they do not check that it is a fact, and many of these incorrect reports are never retracted.

Absolutely, and it's so shallow, including the BBC. Recently bought a few Guardians (well, free with Waitrose shopping) for the first time in many, many years, and realised how awful TV and most online news is.