Researchers Call for Large-Scale Efforts to Tackle Fake News
A recent study has many researchers from Microsoft, Harvard, Yale and MIT calling for an end to fake news. They admit fake news has been around for a long time, but they fail to recognize its prevalence in mainstream media.
Source
Instead, they seem to trust mainstream news media for having organizational processes and "intent". As if mainstream media and news outlets have good and noble intents while anyone else putting out information that is contrary to the established narrative narrative doesn't.
They described fake news as "fabricated information", not real information like those trusted and noble mainstream media outlets. They say fake news mimics news media content, but lacks the intent, editorial norms and processes that ensure credible and accurate information.
I suppose these researchers have not been paying much attention to the manipulation of mainstream media for decades. All it takes is some research to find proof that CNN was faking scenes in their media coverage with green screens, or how other news outlets repeat the exact same pre-scripted stories to perpetuate a collective narrative for the establishment.
As such, anything that isn't coming from news media and it's trusted "processes" is potentially fake news and resembles other "information disorders" like misinformation and disinformation.
The researchers claim there is balance and objectivity in official journalism because of a backlash from propaganda in World War I. Corporate public relations rose in the 1920s, with dominant oligopolies allegedly sustaining these "journalistic norms" of objectivity (because big powerful corporations are so good with giving a shit about objectivity and truth, right?). Gaining entry into print and broadcasting required expensive technology which limited competition. The Internet has now lowered the cost of entry. Almost anyone can get online and put out information.
The researchers say that traditional news sources "enjoyed high levels of public trust and credibility", to which the low cost of entry of anyone on the Internet putting out information has undermined the ability to trust news sources, with general trust in mass media collapsing in this past decade with the rise of online and social media.
It's as if they are saying that people can't think for themselves now that there are more "untrusted" information sources to discern from. As if they can't discern what is actually happening when new information is contrary to the mainstream news establishment narratives. As if before the Internet came around with more people putting out information, people could just blindly engage in trust in the credibility of the news agencies without much thinking and responsibility on their own part.
The researchers propose dealing with this issue at the level of searching for information, to prevent people from being exposed to fake news, that is from being exposed to counter-establishment narratives and information. They want search engine algorithms to control people's access to information.
This is a scary proposition to make, where people aren't going to be allowed to make decisions themselves because information will be restricted from access. If you restrict information and only give people the established mainstream narrative of an event, then that is the only thing they are likely to accept, even when it is false propaganda from the government or mainstream establishment to push an agenda.
Any news source that isn't the mainstream media news source that allegedly has the proper "intent" and "organizational processes" for us to blindly trust the credibility of, could be removed from the search page. Most users never go past the first page of search results, even if the link would be included later on.
A recent Steemit post showed how Google is already engaging in such algorithmic alterations to restrict our access to information and control our perception of what is happening in reality. If you try searching for counter-narratives that differ from the establishment "trusted" news sources, you will not get the result you want to see like you would on other search engines. Try searching "girl says three shooters parkland" in Google vs Duck Duck Go.
You will see results that better match that phrase in Duck Duck Go, that you will in Google searches. The phrase "three shooters" comes up in top posts on Duck Duck Go, but not on Google. Go see for yourself on the two previous links. Why is Google not showing pages first with phrases ("three shooters") that clearly match what was searched for?
Another change they want to make in society is to "improve individual evaluation of the quality of information sources through education". They say by improving critical thinking skills, but it has an ominous feel to it. Evaluate the "quality of information sources", sounds like saying the sources that are mainstream news outlets, and not just anyone who can put out counter-establishment narratives that can be true. If it's real knowledge and truth, then it doesn't matter if it comes from the mainstream media or not.
Evaluate "quality ... sources". Hmmm. I doubt the real honest critical thinking of this. It sounds like leaning towards training and indoctrinating the youth to disregard anything that doesn't come from the establishment. Real free thinking and critical discernment, bah, just make them ignore anything that you say isn't to be "trusted". But maybe I'm just too cynical about all of this... Sorry.
It seems this is the scenario that will play out for most people who buy into this:
Question: Is this information 'fake news'?
Answer: Well, if it's from "trusted" and "credible" mainstream media, then no it's true information about reality. Otherwise, yes it's probably fake news.
Thank you for your time and attention. Peace.
If you appreciate and value the content, please consider: Upvoting, Sharing or Reblogging below.
me for more content to come!
My goal is to share knowledge, truth and moral understanding in order to help change the world for the better. If you appreciate and value what I do, please consider supporting me as a Steem Witness by voting for me at the bottom of the Witness page; or just click on the upvote button if I am in the top 50.
I guess the "researchers" failed to stumble across Project Mockingbird" or the Church Committee hearings. Or I suppose it would be too long and laborious a process to look up an unbiased poll that shows the approval rating being below that of Congress- around 16% (It took me under 30 seconds). Great Job researchers- no bias in your work!!!
LOL! Yeah, they are way to blindly trusting and are spearheading more unconscious approval of the establishment narrative... :/
I think they're a part of the coverup in the same way as YouTube using the SPLC to do their flagging.
This is such a hard topic. I completely resonate with what you're saying about mainstream media reporting being FOS. And previously it was very hard to catch them in their lies, and how could you get the word out to people if you did find out yourself? The internet has democratized the ability for differing views to be heard.
With that comes the problems that always come with our 1st amendment rights. (No one ever said it would be easy.) Yes, sometimes people will use that newfound freedom of reach to spread a blatant lie with the intent of manipulating public opinion to bring about results that benefit them. Basically, it isn't just the "powers that be" who serve corporate and military interests who can play the game now. It's important to keep in mind that the new players may be just as corrupt as the old ones, and just as sinister in what they are doing with this power.
Ultimately my hope is for that critical reasoning thing. I know, it can be perverted too, but what can't be? Somehow we have to protect both freedom of speech (including the freedom of reach the internet provides) AND also diminish the power that organized money outside corporate/military hands can still do to manipulate massive numbers of people with propaganda campaigns. I honestly see no way of doing it other than teaching people to spot propaganda. Now effectively teaching anything is the next issue. We've already seen how well our public education system has been doing. LOL
We need to teach and raise our children better, and that means we need to raise ourselves higher as well in order to do that. Critical thinking is not something well done by most people, certainly not most of the time ;)
Very true. Ultimately it starts within each of us. I'm grateful for the education I had as a child, primarily from my mother. My mother never did well in school. She tried hard, but it never quite came easily to her. But she valued the academic success that had eluded her so much that she super emphasized it among her children. Some of my earliest memories are of her reading me stories, then asking me questions about the stories afterward. Why did I think the main character did that? Why did his friend say that? What might have happened if this or that had been done differently? In some ways it probably made me too serious a kid to fit in among other children, to my detriment. But I am so grateful for the way she taught me so early on to question the world I see and ask myself what is causing it to be as it is and what might cause it to be different. This ability to question reality and decide for ourselves what is really going on, this we have to keep maintaining in ourselves as we age and also do our best to teach to the young.
For me, any media news were always fake because it gives information with the point of view of the Power.
We need more citizenship journalism, with the point of view of the people in the reality as the next "truth media".
Information today is just "counter-information" against the interest of the viewers
A big part of Steemit is a living proof of making way for a possible alternative decentralized media that can make mainstream media obsolete.
Indeed. More people speaking what happens, will counter the dominant narratives of the media and established power structure. Steemit has changed much indeed :)
Sounds like an attack on the freedom of the press. We have liberalists from MIT, Yale, Harvard and Microsoft defending dinosaur media in an effort to control the propaganda thought process. They are acting in fear because they are loosing the information war. It is sad that we have come to this. Again liberal socialists defending state run media because they are afraid the sheeple might wake from their GMO, Monsanto, drug based stupor . Why do you think they try to censor YouTube and Facebook? The deep state fears losing control of state run media mind control. Thanks @krnel
Yeah, keep trusting blindly and don't wake up :/
These "researchers" (i.e. paid propagandists) are apparently incapable of recognizing just how uninformed and ironic their claims are. They need to be reminded that the propaganda ban within the USA was repealed on July 2nd, 2014.
Just how stupid do these "researchers" have to be to contend that there is balance and objectivity in "official" journalism because of a backlash against propaganda when propaganda is now officially legal?
It is difficult to believe they are stupid enough to believe we are stupid enough to believe their stupid propaganda!
Yes... the blind (academics) leading the blind (populace)...
Blinded by greed and the promise of funding for their pet academic projects is more likely than actual ignorance of the facts. They are paid to produce a narrative and they know it.
Control the information control the knowledge.
Control the knowledge, control the belief.
Control the belief, control the society.
Belief is All.
If we believe in what we see, hear, and read without questioning, that information will become true regardless to weather it is fake or not.
Well put. Belief is not truth, yet people fail to discern the two. I have talked about the importance of differentiating between the two ;)
Yep, that's the plan.
Regarding the 'quality of news sources', I have always detested the appeal to authority logical fallacy particularly, and most of the authorities I have any experience with are utterly dishonest, liars to the core.
Particularly amongst the enemedia.
Thanks!
Yup, that's what it is, appeal to the authority of being a "respectable" news source to blindly trust it... barf
Funny, it's intent that creates distorted information / fake news.
But this is true.
Sure, it's harder, but that';s part of being personally responsible. Restricting access to information "they"deem is false is a way to constrict reality and keep us unconscious...
In some way or some how I believe ye olde blockchain technology will end up coming into play in a way used to help verify factual news and information.
I have posted regarding Proof, a blockchain live stream hosting and storage service to surveil 'public servants' to ensure they are earning their pay, instead of selling us down the river.
Given the nascent technology to alter video and insert words and actions (just like managing avatars in a video game) video is losing is utility as evidence. Blockchain and timestamps can fix the problem, and at least mitigate it, even after the ability to produce fake video in real time is attained. It will remain expensive and require preparation in advance to do, and most surveillance video will be free of that taint for some time yet.
Yay to corporate giants deciding what plebs get to see and what not!