The first part of Neal Stephensons latest novel “Fall, or Dodge in hell” explores exactly this topic in the context of social media. The possible consequences of a post-truth world where people cannot agree on facts are stunning. An interesting read.
The Problem with Believing What We’re Told
61–70 of 94 posts
Re: The Problem with Believing What We’re Told
#62The correct term is “propaganda”.
We shouldn’t use the term “fake news”, which is a term designed to undermine trust in news institutions. When we use the term, we contribute to the undermining.
Re: The Problem with Believing What We’re Told
#63The correct term is “propaganda”. We shouldn’t use the term “fake news”, which is a term designed to undermine trust in news institutions. When we use the term, we contribute to the undermining.
That is confusing terms. Propaganda can and usually is built out of true news as well as fake stories - true news presented selectively, given a specific interpretation etc. can be a very powerful tool.
Fake stories and their spread are a different matter - they can be a form of propaganda as well, but they can also serve other properties (selling ads, such as in spam, is a major reason for fake stories).
Re: The Problem with Believing What We’re Told
#64The correct term is “propaganda”. We shouldn’t use the term “fake news”, which is a term designed to undermine trust in news institutions. When we use the term, we contribute to the undermining.
Considering the behavior of top news organizations over the past ±20 years, I have no problem calling them both propaganda and fake news.
Re: The Problem with Believing What We’re Told
#65The correct term is “propaganda”. We shouldn’t use the term “fake news”, which is a term designed to undermine trust in news institutions. When we use the term, we contribute to the undermining.
[deleted]
Re: The Problem with Believing What We’re Told
#66The correct term is “propaganda”. We shouldn’t use the term “fake news”, which is a term designed to undermine trust in news institutions. When we use the term, we contribute to the undermining.
"All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods."
"It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying." - Hitler
Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, is generally credited with scaling up the "big lie" technique. He had access to radio broadcasting, which was new then, and pushed mass production of radio receivers. With those powerful tools, propaganda became far more effective.
Re: The Problem with Believing What We’re Told
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fake news isn't bound to the limits of truth. Fake news can be generated with far greater volume than truth. Fake news can be specifically engineered to appeal to various cognitive biases promoting virality. Truth serves reality. Falsehood can, and very often does, serve specific partisan interests who have a hand in promoting its spread. These are four powerful factors favouring falsehoods and their dissemination.
What you have to come to terms with is that there is not a single 'objective' truth but multiple often contradictory truths. Individual Perception and psychology in addition to cultural and social norms play a large role as well.
There are many types of events where there exists an objective truth. 'humans went to the moon', for example, is a statement whose truth is objective. You may choose to believe this truth or not, but you can't say 'the truth is more complicated than that'. Of course 'Americans went to the moon to further the human condition' is an example of statement for which there is likely not an objective truth - the terms themselves are fuzzy, people usually have multiple reasons and contradictory feelings about their reasons etc.
So if I post a story claiming Hillary Clinton is running a child sex trafficking ring from a pizza place basement, that is unequivocally false. If I run a story saying Hillary Clinton is an evil person seeking to lead the country astray, that may or may not be true depending on many different factors, definitions, personal beliefs etc. It would be wrong to label it as fake news,for this reason.
Re: The Problem with Believing What We’re Told
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dont know man, taking almost 50 years to learn basic rhetoric skills that should have been taught to you during high school english seems like a knockdown argument in favor of education.
I may have been a particularly poor student, subject to a particularly poor education. Signs suggest neither lagged the median by much.
Don’t be too hard on yourself. I get stung by the Guardian April fool story almost every year. It typically takes at least 2 paragraphs to spot what are obviously absurd stories.
To me the April fool stories highlight the biggest issue with media corps... being normally-trustworthy actually makes them very powerful on the occasions when they are mistaken or misused.
Re: The Problem with Believing What We’re Told
#69The correct term is “propaganda”. We shouldn’t use the term “fake news”, which is a term designed to undermine trust in news institutions. When we use the term, we contribute to the undermining.
That is confusing terms. Propaganda can and usually is built out of true news as well as fake stories - true news presented selectively, given a specific interpretation etc. can be a very powerful tool. Fake stories and their spread are a different matter - they can be a form of propaganda as well, but they can also serve other properties (selling ads, such as in spam, is a major reason for fake stories).
I've been using the word "paltering" or "to palter" to help make this distinction. Once "lying by being truthful" has a concrete name like paltering, it is easier to get others to start to see the different kinds of propaganda and label them.
Paltering is what Chomsky rails against in traditional media in his books such as Manufacturing Consent. Ex: tortured Polish Solidarity Catholic priests in the USSR get national headlines, but Catholic Priests murdered by US-funded death squads in Guatemala do not.
Re: The Problem with Believing What We’re Told
#70I think a lot of people don't really care or want to know what is going on in the world, they prefer watching "entertaining" high speed car chases, tornado reports, animal rescues, special guest "experts" that shout ideas over one another, and whatever other wild things the news can come up with these days. I'm in Poland right now, the latest "big" news was that the son of some rich guy died jet skiing and that a thunderstorm killed some people in the mountains, not the crisis in Venezuela or protests going on in Hong Kong. I recommend Anchorman 2, if you haven't watched it already, great comedy and commentary about the state of the current news.