News on the News: Fake News

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
Curiosity: What you say changes me; what somebody else says in a public forum changes many people. As long as we are listening, we are changed by most of the messages we recieve. Does that mean I can control people with my message? Open question.

Tyrants and warmongers can whip their populations into a bloodthirsty frenzy: but the audience had to be willing to go there in the first place. History has too many examples of this for this claim to be untrue.

Smart reporters know they might have a great deal of influence but very little power.

Pangloss.

Pangloss

Interesting answer thank you.

I believe the press can whip populations into a bloodthirsty frenzy as well.

For some strange reason we believe the voice or print delivering the message and never question the source of the message, to what degree of accuracy it is reported and how much "grab" the piece was given.

Frighteningly I think the press has a great deal of power because it is easily accessed and people are basically lazy in the area of doing their own homework.

Question: If you prefer to reserve an answer I will understand but I often ask it of press people.
"Would you knowingly print or read an untruth for whatever rationale you excused yourself in so doing?"
 

Pangloss

Council Member
Mar 16, 2007
1,535
41
48
Calgary, Alberta
My answer is brutally short: no I would not print a lie. If I cannot tell the truth, then I would say nothing.

But now, would I lie to stop a greater evil? I have no idea.

Pangloss
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
Pangloss

Wonderful answer..... It contained some excellent thought. I would have to agree on the last part without reservation.

I'll leave you alone now as I have monopolized your time here.... thanks for being patient!
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Pangloss,

What is your take on the serious lack of objectivity, which in my view borders on a serious lack of integredy, among todays journalists?

No offence inteneded to you or your profession, just my opinion.

Example, the CBC and its material handlers and gatherers.
 

Pangloss

Council Member
Mar 16, 2007
1,535
41
48
Calgary, Alberta
Pangloss,

What is your take on the serious lack of objectivity, which in my view borders on a serious lack of integredy, among todays journalists?

No offence inteneded to you or your profession, just my opinion.

Example, the CBC and its material handlers and gatherers.

I wonder if it is objectivity that is being lost, or if narcissism is creeping out of editorials and into regular journalism.

I think it was Robert Fulford who said that a reporter should publish a sentence that starts with "I" or "me" only once every two years. Unfortunately, Rebecca Eckler and her ilk are the hot new properties in Canadian Print journalism, and their only topic is themselves. Every column is about their wedding, their in-laws, their travels, their thoughts. Yawn inducing navel-gazing.

Television follows (as it usually does, wherever thinking is involved) because liking the presenter is more important to viewer loyalty than thinking the show is smart or worthwhile. When I hosted shows or documentaries, I tried to work with the idea that I was mostly in the way of the information I wanted to get out, and so the best thing I could do was minimize "me" statements and simply present the story as well as I could.

Journalists, an introspective lot, have written a lot about this exact topic. I would suggest "Queen's Quarterly", an awesome Canadian magazine - about every third issue usually has a piece about how Canadian journalism is going to hell.

Now, what about political spin sneaking its way into reportage? Let me ask you this: if you were to explain the Canadian political system to a newcomer, could you do it without opinion or bias or personal perspective or whatever you wish to call it? Laziness and human nature is at the root of most of that kind of backhand editorializing.

Fox news does not apply to any of the above. I have no idea how to begin listing their crimes.

Pangloss

Pangloss
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I wonder if it is objectivity that is being lost, or if narcissism is creeping out of editorials and into regular journalism.

I think it was Robert Fulford who said that a reporter should publish a sentence that starts with "I" or "me" only once every two years. Unfortunately, Rebecca Eckler and her ilk are the hot new properties in Canadian Print journalism, and their only topic is themselves. Every column is about their wedding, their in-laws, their travels, their thoughts. Yawn inducing navel-gazing.

Television follows (as it usually does, wherever thinking is involved) because liking the presenter is more important to viewer loyalty than thinking the show is smart or worthwhile. When I hosted shows or documentaries, I tried to work with the idea that I was mostly in the way of the information I wanted to get out, and so the best thing I could do was minimize "me" statements and simply present the story as well as I could.

Journalists, an introspective lot, have written a lot about this exact topic. I would suggest "Queen's Quarterly", an awesome Canadian magazine - about every third issue usually has a piece about how Canadian journalism is going to hell.

Now, what about political spin sneaking its way into reportage? Let me ask you this: if you were to explain the Canadian political system to a newcomer, could you do it without opinion or bias or personal perspective or whatever you wish to call it? Laziness and human nature is at the root of most of that kind of backhand editorializing.

Fox news does not apply to any of the above. I have no idea how to begin listing their crimes.

Pangloss

Pangloss
Excellent response,

To answer your question...

My exact answer to a newcomer would be, "Picture a day care, full of 5 yearolds, hi on sugar and food dies. Now remove all reason and logic. Got the mental image? Yep, good, that's the House of Commons!"

Is that biased?
 

BFGRW16-10-32

New Member
Mar 17, 2007
1
0
1
News Here Is Manipulation At Its Highest

It pays to read the news from several sources these days. Seems that the news is slated or being manipulated by some one with a special purpose in mind. One thing is for sure that when there is sensationalism involved in news from government or industry there is something in the background some one is trying to accomplish. Can the news be trusted to actually produce facts? That seems the farthest thing from the intent these days.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
It pays to read the news from several sources these days. Seems that the news is slated or being manipulated by some one with a special purpose in mind. One thing is for sure that when there is sensationalism involved in news from government or industry there is something in the background some one is trying to accomplish. Can the news be trusted to actually produce facts? That seems the farthest thing from the intent these days.
Your train of thought is good, you made one lil slip up. Though I hate people who point out spelling or grammar errors, in this case, I'm going to point out one in your post, that is actually such a profound statement, I'm not sure if it was an error...

Can the news be trusted to actually produce facts?

I think it should have said...

Can the news be trusted to actually present facts?

But...

Can the news be trusted to actually produce facts?

They do just that. They are producing the facts they want to sell to you. They follow the demographics and grope for their market share, by doing just that. That, IMHO, is where the MSM news outlets loses touch with reality. They change from reporters, to producers, conning the people in the process.

Sorry for disecting your post BFG, I ment no offence, I just though you hit the nail on the head, accidently or otherwise.
 

Rar! I'm a scary monster!

Electoral Member
Mar 10, 2007
134
5
18
46
Western NC, USA
Actually, studies I've read suggest that television news usually leaves a person less informed than someone who abstains from the tube.

But that's another thread.

Pangloss

Nah, that enters into this thread. I am aware of US news atrocities, yet I have been sans cable/stellite/network TV for over 4 years now.

I seek multiple news sources from teh internets. I actually find that participating in/reading fora in which folks discuss news tends to spur an info-seeking mission in me. I often abuse Google to find as many viewpoints as I can before I grow lazy and slightly apathetic. (Apathy sets in MUCH faster with the unadulterated aid of TV, so I think I'm doing well):-|
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
To what BFGRW16-10-32 said, produce is an acceptable word to use. It's the same word lawyers use to present evidence, can they produce any evidence? That evidence will be subject to scrutiny, much like news stories should be.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
I was awatching some talking heads a week or so ago who went on about the US media in the lead up to the war in Iraq. There were some who criticized Fox for being biased. One guy chimed in to say that was par for the course on Fox and was not the problem. The real tragedy were networks like CNN who didn't want to look biased and simply ignored producing anything that questioned the administration on their march to war. There was enough groupthink going on in government and public (with us or against us) that anyone questioning the facts around Saddam Hussein and Iraq was likely to be labeled in similar fashion to Al Jazeera. The American media did the country a disservice IMO. For those of us who watched at arms length it was fairly obvious.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Really?? This far back since fake news had it's own thread, amazing place we have here. is this faked fake news??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOS2o1gTvHE#t=569.0689837
Watch CNN Accidentally Explain How They're Fake News!