Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts
1–10 of 216 posts
Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts
#2[deleted]
Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts
#3I'm really happy to have my freedom of speech. I don't think i would do well under the classic Puritan model.
I do sometimes wonder if there's room for a special class of formal speech for journalism. Grant rights perhaps formalizing protecting a source. But also require some responsibilities. Not sure what the standard should be, but we do the same thing for lawyers and doctors.
Also "pernicious to the publick weal" is an amusing phrase.
Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts
#4This whole "fake news" thing is absolutely ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that I very very rarely hear a fact touted by the left OR right that is just outright incorrect. The problem is much less to do with facts, and much more to do with implications or conclusions, which many news sources dish out handily.
Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts
#5"Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts"
Thankfully, we've learned a few things since then and liberal (classic definition, not American definition), democratic minded people know how dangerous government defined truth (no matter how simple or well accepted) is.
There is a cost to this, of course - the citizenry is required to have a level of sophistication and erudition and they will be forced to make nuanced and complicated judgements about the state of their world.
If you find that too high a bar to cross, a "ministry of truth" may sound attractive. Please grow up and resist that urge. It may help to read about twentieth century dictatorships and the history of modern, repressive regimes in general.
Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts
#6I'm really happy to have my freedom of speech. I don't think i would do well under the classic Puritan model. I do sometimes wonder if there's room for a special class of formal speech for journalism. Grant rights perhaps formalizing protecting a source. But also require some responsibilities. Not sure what the standard should be, but we do the same thing for lawyers and doctors. Also "pernicious to the publick weal"…
For what its worth, we did do this though it is in part a sort of detente between prosecutors and journalists.
This wall has been eroded, with some of the most striking erosion happening around the threatened prosecution of James Risen for refusing to disclose a source.
https://theintercept.com/2018/01/03/my-life-as-a-new-york-ti...
Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts
#7This whole "fake news" thing is absolutely ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that I very very rarely hear a fact touted by the left OR right that is just outright incorrect. The problem is much less to do with facts, and much more to do with implications or conclusions, which many news sources dish out handily.
The original meaning was literally something that looks like a news report, but reports as fact something that didn't actually happen and isn't obviously satire. As an example, "Pope Francis endorses Donald Trump".
That was, in fact a fake news story. The fact it asserted had no basis in reality.
Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts
#8"Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts" Thankfully, we've learned a few things since then and liberal (classic definition, not American definition), democratic minded people know how dangerous government defined truth (no matter how simple or well accepted) is. There is a cost to this, of course - the citizenry is required to have a level of sophistication and erudition and they will be forced…
Unfortunately, there are voices in the foreign policy establishment that are openly advocating for a "ministry of truth" https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/atlantic-council-explains...
Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts
#9This whole "fake news" thing is absolutely ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that I very very rarely hear a fact touted by the left OR right that is just outright incorrect. The problem is much less to do with facts, and much more to do with implications or conclusions, which many news sources dish out handily.
That's weird, I constantly see friends spreading outright incorrect, political trolling from clickbait factories like "Daily World Upate" or "America’s Last Line of Defense".
Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts
#10This whole "fake news" thing is absolutely ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that I very very rarely hear a fact touted by the left OR right that is just outright incorrect. The problem is much less to do with facts, and much more to do with implications or conclusions, which many news sources dish out handily.
"Fake news" has become a cure for cognitive dissonance, but it started out as "pizzagate" and its ilk. That certainly was fake, somewhat effective, and toxic. It's still around. Check out qanon, spirtcooking, etc.