Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 119 posts

Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

#81

Post by metalliqaz »

Communitivity wrote: post #68

And here we go.. Funfortunately, most of the misinformation I hear is presented as entertainment. I am fine with it, if like SNL it is clearly labelled as satire, and not done as if it was news (as one network it seems to me often does). Sadly, there are many who watch that network, and shows like its shows, who believe what they are hearing to be the gospel truth. This is to the point of a man arming himself with an…

I can't believe you pulled a "both sides" line comparing The Daily Show and The Rush Limbaugh Show. This is not apples to apples.

Perhaps Rush's (or to use a more current example, Tucker Carlson's) viewers are so twisted that they no longer recognize what a comedy show is. That doesn't mean we become just as unreasonable as they are. It's not The Onion's fault when someone "eats the onion".

Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

#82

Post by rabidrat »

tru3_power wrote: post #76
Communitivity wrote: post #68

And here we go.. Funfortunately, most of the misinformation I hear is presented as entertainment. I am fine with it, if like SNL it is clearly labelled as satire, and not done as if it was news (as one network it seems to me often does). Sadly, there are many who watch that network, and shows like its shows, who believe what they are hearing to be the gospel truth. This is to the point of a man arming himself with an…

Doesn’t the responsibility ultimately lay on consumer of said entertainment to ascertain this? Seems like the bigger problem we’re facing here is a mental health problem.

What's your solution to that "mental health" problem? More education? Smart pills? Inpatient counseling?

I'm all for personal responsibility, but particularly when unwitting consumption can have society-wide negative effects, the responsibility lays on society to take steps to mitigate the consumption and damage.

Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

#84

Post by damq »

catacombs wrote: post #77
AmericanChopper wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most reporting is based on opinions, or is at least misleading in the sense that it tends to be reported from well defined perspective. The editorial decisions about what to report, what to not report, what to report as important or credible, and what to report as irrelevant or non-credible, can all be used to mislead the audience and misrepresent events. I can’t think of one mainstream news outlet that doesn’t do th…

> Most reporting is based on opinions, or is at least misleading in the sense that it tends to be reported from well defined perspective. What do you mean by this? Most new organizations have a separate, opinion section. Does your statement include the news department, too?

One example is that news organizations will often choose not to report on crimes when they're committed by racial group A even when they report on the same crimes when committed by racial group B.

Highlighting or minimizing demographic information of victims and assailants in crimes is a huge way news organizations insert their biases while still reporting factually accurate information.

Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

#85

Post by forgottenpass »

metalliqaz wrote: post #81
Communitivity wrote: post #68

And here we go.. Funfortunately, most of the misinformation I hear is presented as entertainment. I am fine with it, if like SNL it is clearly labelled as satire, and not done as if it was news (as one network it seems to me often does). Sadly, there are many who watch that network, and shows like its shows, who believe what they are hearing to be the gospel truth. This is to the point of a man arming himself with an…

I can't believe you pulled a "both sides" line comparing The Daily Show and The Rush Limbaugh Show. This is not apples to apples. Perhaps Rush's (or to use a more current example, Tucker Carlson's) viewers are so twisted that they no longer recognize what a comedy show is. That doesn't mean we become just as unreasonable as they are. It's not The Onion's fault when someone "eats the onion".

Aren't people who watch the Daily Show under the false impression that the setups for punchlines are real news? Why would anyone knowingly watch them butcher the news just to make the punchlines work?

Watching the Daily Show when you follow the news is like watching an observational stand-up focus on weird contradictions in everyday life when you already know the un-intuitive aspects of the matter that cause the discrepancy they're riffing on. Except a bit more depressing, because it means either their writers are bad news consumers, or are just changing shit to be more convenient to their joke structure.

Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

#86

Post by Bartweiss »

tru3_power wrote: post #76
Communitivity wrote: post #68

And here we go.. Funfortunately, most of the misinformation I hear is presented as entertainment. I am fine with it, if like SNL it is clearly labelled as satire, and not done as if it was news (as one network it seems to me often does). Sadly, there are many who watch that network, and shows like its shows, who believe what they are hearing to be the gospel truth. This is to the point of a man arming himself with an…

Doesn’t the responsibility ultimately lay on consumer of said entertainment to ascertain this? Seems like the bigger problem we’re facing here is a mental health problem.

I'd find that more reasonable if Facebook said "we're not fact-checking anything, work it out yourselves", or tagged these articles as "exempted from fact-checking". Offering to flag false stories creates an expectation which is violated when you fail to distinguish "true" from "unchecked".

Separately I don't think we should equate mental health with mental hygiene here. Mental health might make the difference between "believing untrue things" and "showing up somewhere with a gun and no particular plan", but it's hardly a precondition for accepting wildly improbable and untrue claims.

Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

#87

Post by notacoward »

chrisseaton wrote: post #9
cm2187 wrote: post #2

Scott Adams claims that about 30% of people in a society just do not get humour / satire and take things at the first degree, particularly if it reinforces their convictions. If it is true, and I think he may have a point, there would be some value in labelling humour or satire as such. It sounds ridiculous, but like it is ridiculous to have a label “not suitable for your pets” on a microwave!

> Scott Adams claims that about 30% of people in a society just do not get humour / satire Satire, snark, and sarcasm have to be least effective way you could possibly choose to communicate. You are absolutely begging to be misunderstood and misquoted, either genuinely or maliciously, and then it's nigh on impossible to explain yourself as all your excuses just sound like like it-was-a-prank-bro . Another huge proble…

Were you intending to demonstrate self-satire, or was it an accident? _A Modest Proposal_ alone should make the case for the effectiveness of satire, which is closely related to the even more time-honored reductio ad absurdum. The problem is that there's a lot of bad satire, and false satire, but that's a problem with almost every form of speech/writing that's not completely dry, flat, and colorless. It's true of analogy, allegory, metaphor, hyperbole (like yours when you say "least effective way possible"), poetry, etc. They're all abused. They're all prone to misunderstanding. Effective communication is hard. Don't mistake personal preference for a general rule, or present it as such.

Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

#88

Post by bogomipz »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #7
paxys wrote: post #3

Most of the misinformation and propaganda out there is presented as "opinion" on all networks. The very little actual news on Fox, for example, is always accurate (and actually pretty good), so not being able to call them out on that takes away from the entire effort.

Most reporting is based on opinions, or is at least misleading in the sense that it tends to be reported from well defined perspective. The editorial decisions about what to report, what to not report, what to report as important or credible, and what to report as irrelevant or non-credible, can all be used to mislead the audience and misrepresent events. I can’t think of one mainstream news outlet that doesn’t do th…

No, "most reporting" is certainly not "based on opinions." The only acceptable "opinions" expressed in straight reporting are the opinions of the people in the story i.e the subjects. To do otherwise is known as "editorializing" and has no place in a straight news story.

Newspapers have their own section for expressing the opinions of a writer and they are clearly labeled Editorial or OpEd.

It's bizarre to me that you want to be critical yet seem to lack a fundamental understanding of the thing you are being critical of.

Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

#89

Post by ummonk »

Communitivity wrote: post #68

And here we go.. Funfortunately, most of the misinformation I hear is presented as entertainment. I am fine with it, if like SNL it is clearly labelled as satire, and not done as if it was news (as one network it seems to me often does). Sadly, there are many who watch that network, and shows like its shows, who believe what they are hearing to be the gospel truth. This is to the point of a man arming himself with an…

I assume the "one network" you're referring to is Fox News and not MSNBC? Because both seem to be guilty of this.

Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking

#90

Post by charwalker »

paxys wrote: post #3

Most of the misinformation and propaganda out there is presented as "opinion" on all networks. The very little actual news on Fox, for example, is always accurate (and actually pretty good), so not being able to call them out on that takes away from the entire effort.

Fox Polling is very solid. Most everything else...not so much.

Fivethirtyeight lists Fox News/Anderson Robbins Research/Shaw & Co. Research polling with an A rating. Their polls are generally unbiased and accurate. It even has slight Dem favor-ability.

They then list Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Corp. with a B rating and slight R favor-ability.

Source: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/?ex_ci...

Post reply on HN