Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Tim Cook Describes Fake News as 'One of Today's Chief Problems'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This reminds me of a study done about students from middle school to college:
Most Students Can’t Tell the Difference Between Fake and Real News
Here is one part that I found interesting....
Stanford Study said:
Not entirely sure what your point is but...
That makes perfect sense to me. Unless the income tax was written into law prior to 1913 but not levied, it is more accurate to say that it didn't yet exist than to say it was set to 0%.
What % of income was federally taxed before 1913?
[doublepost=1486734524][/doublepost]
http://thefederalist.com/2017/02/06/16-fake-news-stories-reporters-have-run-since-trump-won/
Ok, I get the point you're trying to make, but as I said, "Unless the income tax was written into law prior to 1913 but not levied, it is more accurate to say that it didn't yet exist than to say it was set to 0%." Either way, it's not some crazy egregious example of bias.
Despite what you may have heard, ignorance is not bliss.
I have this relative who never reads or watches the news. She tells me, "I depend on you to tell me what's going on." Now I could succumb to the temptation to fill her head with ideas that are identical to mine, but whenever she says that my reaction is more like, Jesus Christ, really?
Oh, I think he knows the difference. When he cries fake news at the media it's an Orwellian attempt to delegitimize them.
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/318794-cnn-host-fake-news-the-n-word-for-journalists
How anyone watches this channel and worse buys into their tears is beyond me.
And why is Tim injecting himself into this trashy content? His sole responsibility is to deliver profit to shareholders. Just like The Verge is to report on tech. Every liberal is falling apart. It's adorable.
I'm thinking you don't know much history, when it comes to the politization of newspapers. They have ALWAYS been partisan. Didn't like the way the papers were covering you/your interests? Buy one, and print your own news. Not too different from today's cable news networks. Hell, even nations (RT.com) are doing it now.
Rather than trying to filter/censor certain content, I'd rather see people be educated on the best ways to obtain information and learn. Part 1 of that class: retweets, memes, and shares are not a great way to get good information.
I agree, all that fake news on macrumors about the mac line of computers being updated is frustrating
Watch out for fake pipelines, road maps and magic.
Just sayin'.
Just sayin'.
Agree. An uninformed populace is very dangerous. As is a populace that relies on government or corporations to tell them what is fake and what isn't. Fake news must be dealt with, but we walk a very dangerous line in doing so. Must be sure we stay on the side of keeping things honest vs. censorship and spin.
[doublepost=1486735298][/doublepost]
All I can do is shake my head in disgust/fear.
Um, certainly you understand that a deluge of "alternative facts" makes it very hard to address a lot of the problems you cite, right? Also, you don't have to be a barista who runs a drum circle in order to care about things.
The only way to stop fake news is to implement censorship. Without censorship, each individual person has to be able to determine for themselves what is factual and what is not. Leaving censorship to the government, or some greedy corporation is a recipe for disaster (at least if one values freedom, freedom of speech, and economic well being.)
Now determining if fake news is fake is surprising simple. Instead is paying attention or believing the news story headline or first paragraph (if news publishers even write paragraphs anymore), examine all of the text or video and ask if the headline was true, what would you expect in the body of the article.
If some key information is missing, then the news is probably fake. This is how people lie without thinking they are lying. Leaving information out is not considered lying these days.
If the headline is radically different than the body, then the news is probably fake. It was written in order to generate emotion, not to convey news (or facts).
Normally, I consider the story with these characteristics as propaganda. While there might be a kernel of truth, its usually not worth the time to try to read past the publishers lies.
Now determining if fake news is fake is surprising simple. Instead is paying attention or believing the news story headline or first paragraph (if news publishers even write paragraphs anymore), examine all of the text or video and ask if the headline was true, what would you expect in the body of the article.
If some key information is missing, then the news is probably fake. This is how people lie without thinking they are lying. Leaving information out is not considered lying these days.
If the headline is radically different than the body, then the news is probably fake. It was written in order to generate emotion, not to convey news (or facts).
Normally, I consider the story with these characteristics as propaganda. While there might be a kernel of truth, its usually not worth the time to try to read past the publishers lies.
It seems like a lot of news stations are now propaganda machines, but then again, the #1 rule of mass media: "Give people what they want." Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to want propaganda rather than factual, unbiased news.
I remember a good Gene Roddenberry (the creator of Star Trek) quote:
Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of people are going the opposite direction: taking a "special delight" in widening the gap between us, and make people who are different seem like evil bastards. Truly Sad.
I remember a good Gene Roddenberry (the creator of Star Trek) quote:
Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of people are going the opposite direction: taking a "special delight" in widening the gap between us, and make people who are different seem like evil bastards. Truly Sad.
There is only 1 solution to get rid of fake news, we need to create a federal Ministry of Truth and make it illegal to print, upload or broadcast anything that contradicts the official version of events ** Sarcasm alert for the humor impaired **
I am still waiting for an objective definition of "fake news". Does "fake news" include the Duke Lacrosse team rape story, U.S. Senators who lie about having served in Vietnam, and countless broken promises from politicians?
At what point does "spin" make a story false? There is an old, cold war joke about a race held between a U.S. team and a Soviet team and the U.S. team won. The punchline is the way the story was reported in the Soviet papers the following day when they truthfully stated, "The Soviet team came in second and the American team finished next to last."
I am still waiting for an objective definition of "fake news". Does "fake news" include the Duke Lacrosse team rape story, U.S. Senators who lie about having served in Vietnam, and countless broken promises from politicians?
At what point does "spin" make a story false? There is an old, cold war joke about a race held between a U.S. team and a Soviet team and the U.S. team won. The punchline is the way the story was reported in the Soviet papers the following day when they truthfully stated, "The Soviet team came in second and the American team finished next to last."
I don't know about that. Saying the tax is 0% is basically saying there is an absence of tax. It is semantics really.
What Starflyer posted shows the danger of having these so-called fact checkers. Who fact checks the fact checkers?
This reminds me of a debate that I watched a while back where one of the politicians got help from the moderators with fact checking about something the other politician said. It totally threw the other politician off of his game, which is a little understandable considering moderators do not typically fact check.
The problem is, the moderator was wrong about her fact checking.
How so? You are in the minority - IIRC the last polls had something like 50-55% supporting the immigration pause and most other executive orders as of late. What we've been doing these last 15 or so years has not been working as newer generations of Americans are worse off than their parents.
Putting a businessperson in charge makes sense. Smart businesspeople know that you get people working so they can buy whatever you are selling. I can make all the widgets in the world but if people can't buy them I'll go under in short order. It's really simple.
The thing with 'fake news' is that sometimes it's the mainstream media that reports this fake (or dishonest) news. Not necessarily defending Trump here, but he did get criticised for things that didn't even happen. Take the whole thing about him mocking a disabled reporter, for example. He wasn't mocking anyone, he was just making some spastic movements he's made throughout his campaign. And all the big media outlets (CNN, MSNBC, NBC etc.) were all over it. Neither one of them was being honest about it. The worst thing is that because it is the mainstream media doing this, people will actually believe it. We're not using fact checkers these days, so we just assume it's true. And we can't rely too much on smaller media outlets, because they tend to report fake news as well.
Now, not to say the conservative media is much better, because I do think Breitbart News for example sometimes overdoes things. But we're not talking mainstream media here, that's the main difference. It's more like a very well-known news blog. So they're not committing any crime here. The mainstream media on the other hand... they have to report 100% accurate and honest news. And especially: objective news! People watch the news to learn about events happening in the world. But these days, every time I watch CNN, I seem these reporters crying over something President Trump said, stating their negative opinions on it constantly. We all know many people hate Trump, but for God's sake, you should be reporting objective news, not stating your opinion! If I want to know someones opinion, I'll watch a talk show like The Late Show with Stephen Colbert or The Daily Show at Comedy Central.
And you know, I think it's hypocrite of Facebook what they want to do. What they see as fake media is not what others might see as fake news. I want to know how exactly these companies plan on defeating fake media. Are they only going to do this to websites like The Gatewaypundit, Breitbart News etc? Or will they also do that to more liberal and mainstream media? Because many will not acknowledge the failures of those, that's how biased people are.
Now, not to say the conservative media is much better, because I do think Breitbart News for example sometimes overdoes things. But we're not talking mainstream media here, that's the main difference. It's more like a very well-known news blog. So they're not committing any crime here. The mainstream media on the other hand... they have to report 100% accurate and honest news. And especially: objective news! People watch the news to learn about events happening in the world. But these days, every time I watch CNN, I seem these reporters crying over something President Trump said, stating their negative opinions on it constantly. We all know many people hate Trump, but for God's sake, you should be reporting objective news, not stating your opinion! If I want to know someones opinion, I'll watch a talk show like The Late Show with Stephen Colbert or The Daily Show at Comedy Central.
And you know, I think it's hypocrite of Facebook what they want to do. What they see as fake media is not what others might see as fake news. I want to know how exactly these companies plan on defeating fake media. Are they only going to do this to websites like The Gatewaypundit, Breitbart News etc? Or will they also do that to more liberal and mainstream media? Because many will not acknowledge the failures of those, that's how biased people are.
