The Pandemic of Fake Online News (What should be done?)

[TurkeyOnRye]

As many of you are no doubt aware, there has been a surge of fake news in online media. Many of them are parodies, but many others masquerade as legitimate stories from well-known news outlets. Some web designers go so far as to copy corporate logos and create believable albeit utterly false stories...all for the sake of ad revenue. The problem has gotten so bad, that the mainstream corporate media has been picking up these stories and running them on occasion, to their colossal embarrassment.

As long as you're not concerned with things like integrity, ethics, and accurate reporting, it's actually a brilliant work strategy, since it requires no field work and you're guaranteed to have an exclusive story.

Should anything be done about it? What can be done about it? What are the consequences of false information saturating the airwaves? What is your method to vetting the authenticity of online news?

 

[allfoak]

There are no laws preventing the mainstream media from telling lies, that changed a long time ago.
All media is propaganda now.

 

[Laika]

Not Sure. The nature of the internet is that it gives a voice to everyone regardless of their level of knowledge, expertise and mental health. I can't use YouTube that much (due to metered internet) but when I did I realised that I might as well be walking into a parrelell universe where the moon landing was faked, 9/11 was an inside job, the list of suspects for the JFK assasination kept getting bigger, and their is a secret Kenyan Muslim in the White House. And this is the "tame" stuff- not like the Alien Pyramids as seen on Google Earth in Antartica, the secret plan to round up everyone into government FEMA camps or the Repitallian Lizard Monsters who walk among us and rule us all.

[For the politically saavy- you'll know I'm using examples of far-right conspiracy theories. Arguably some of the "mysticism" of far-right ideologies is more conducive to conspiracy theories than the extreme rationalism of their there far-left counter-parts. There are left-wing eqivilents but you have to know what you are looking for.]

It took a while for me to "adapt" and to essentially filter it out and ignore it. It is however, still there and people do believe it. it was quite a shock going from thinking everyone thinks the same way to suddenly having access to this explosion of information and opinion which throws you quite off balance. I "like" the diversity in a way, but it unsettles me what the long-term political consequences will be. It strikes me that we are in a period of profound intellectual crisis and even something of a dark age, given how pessimistic we are about the future, humanity, the capacity for progress based on science and technology, etc.

A major problem is that the line between information and entertainment has become blurred, and what we "feel" often takes precedence over what the evidence is because appealing to our emotions is a more effective marketing technique. Insisting that there is an objective truth nowdays comes off as an instrument of totalitarian rule by elites, and is powerful as an anti-intellectual, anti-scientific and anti-enlightenment force.

There are no laws preventing the mainstream media from telling lies, that changed a long time ago.
All media is propaganda now.

I believe it was a Reagan Era reform, but I can't name the exact law. I believe it had something to do with Media objectivity as a restriction on First Amendment rights to Free Speech and Freedom of the Press.

 

[allfoak]

It took a while for me to "adapt" and to essentially filter it out and ignore it. It is however, still there and people do believe it. it was quite a shock going from thinking everyone thinks the same way to suddenly having access to this explosion of information and opinion which throws you quite off balance. I "like" the diversity in a way, but it unsettles me what the long-term political consequences will be. It strikes me that we are in a period of profound intellectual crisis and even something of a dark age, given how pessimistic we are about the future, humanity, the capacity for progress based on science and technology, etc.

It is very perceptive of you to recognize that we are in an intellectual dark age.
An interesting aspect of this is that the opportunity for expanding one's consciousness has never been made more available to the masses than it is now.
It is the way the natural laws work.
There has to always be balance.

However absurd it may seem, everything is true to someone.
Truth is dynamic not static.
This means that there is only truth no lies.
What we know now is our current level of truth until we grow into a higher understanding of what we know.

What is not well known because much has been hidden for a long time, is that the Bible is quasi-historical, meaning it has false historical references and other absurdities written into it on purpose.
A thinking man would ask why would a supposed holy book have so many mistakes and absurdities written into it?
It seems that the reason can only be to cause one to look past the historical jesus and look inside one's self for the truth.

All of this alternative media and conspiracy theories are a way to get people to see that information that comes from the outside is not reliable.
The message is that we must look inside ourselves for the truth.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I believe it was a Reagan Era reform, but I can't name the exact law. I believe it had something to do with Media objectivity as a restriction on First Amendment rights to Free Speech and Freedom of the Press.

The fairness doctrine, which required broadcasters since 1949 to provide equal time for contrary viewpoints to editorials broadcast on their stations, was overturned in 1987, under Reagan, in part because it was deemed to violate freedom of speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

This opened the way for the current glut of commentators espousing their positions with no direct comparison to others' viewpoints or challenges from opponents--allowing the networks to become as crass and absurd as the tabloid newspapers. At the same time, the science and art of marketing and Public Relations has continued to grow more reliable, and now dominates all the media.

 

[Revoltingest]

The fairness doctrine, which required broadcasters since 1949 to provide equal time for contrary viewpoints to editorials broadcast on their stations, was overturned in 1987, under Reagan, in part because it was deemed to violate freedom of speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

This opened the way for the current glut of commentators espousing their positions with no direct comparison to others' viewpoints or challenges from opponents--allowing the networks to become as crass and absurd as the tabloid newspapers. At the same time, the science and art of marketing and Public Relations has continued to grow more reliable, and now dominates all the media.

I remember the old days, when news was sanitized.
The Fairness Doctrine stifled some reporting because of the obligation it imposed.
I prefer our new chaotic news world.
We have more sources than ever, without government or major media being the gatekeepers of what we're allowed to see.
Compelled speech is not free speech.
The Fairness Doctrine is dead.....long live anarchy!

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think it's always been that way.