RE: Why MIT's Orwellian "Largest-Ever Study of Fake News" Is Nonsense.
It is indeed hard to determine what is "real" and what is "fake" news, firstly because nothing is 100% "true", and secondly because two things can be true at the same time:
Is, for example, relating the facts correctly but omitting a very important fact, true or false news?
Is relating the facts with chronological order but carefully choosing adjectives and labels to influence opinion true or false news?
The biggest way to manipulate through the media is actually through the use of language, not the facts themselves. It is how you present a story, through highlighting specific events over others, choosing words and writing styles to describe events, people and ideas, and the choice of pictures.
Therefore, the only way to get a more objective idea of what is really going on is consult as many sources as possible. Sources from the opposition. Sources from independent authors. Sources from abroad, from different points in time and space. And of course, use critical thinking.
Greetings!
The image here is important to understand, yes - however, the fact that there are multiple angles on the truth does not mean that we cannot understand truth 100%. By remaining open and agile in our ability to examine details and perspectives, we can build up a thorough understanding of the topic.
The 'spin' aspect is a key method used to misrepresent the facts, yes - typically by telling half the truth and omitting other aspects. Sometimes this is done deliberately and sometimes it is done unconsciously because those involved actually think what they are saying is true when it is missing important facts.
The most important element in all of this understanding what judgements, bias and denial are - plus then removing them all from thought processes.
Is language enough? That is attacked so much now. Must we also be vigilant to think and express things freely which don't necessarily adhere to status quo? How much can these large propaganda silos care what it is they are pumping out, point is they are concerned with 'how' people respond. My theory is to approach things from a seven-point perspective: mathematical, historical, scientific, ethical, philsophical, religious, and occult. What levels of varying objective reliability do these frameworks provide in the scope of topics, particular to those distributors who want me to think something, not enable me to creatively wonder about something.
Interesting approach and it's an exercise that definitely offers you a greater perspective. However, I believe that categorizing itself is limiting, because adhering to categories offers a false sense of a global / objective perspective and creates a kind of a middle ground fallacy. These seven categories were picked by you and were influenced by your own personal experiences, beliefs and biases. For example, another person might never have picked "religious" and "occult" or even "ethical" since they are disciplines that depend on personal belief or opinion versus proven facts, but they might have picked "logic" or "semantics" or "evolutionary biology" or "anthropology" or "linguistics" and so on. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the categories themselves are constraining you inside your own biases, because they force you to choose which scope you believe is more important to examine things from. It's best to just be open and not categorize approaches. Just try to think critically and combine sources and knowledge.