Poll: Majority says mainstream media publishes fake news

>>143432
The majority also doesn't know the real definition of the phrase "fake news."

>>143441
News that's untrue?

>>143432
inb4 the rise of state news

>>143448
No, it isn't that simple. News may be untrue because the sources and/or journalists are misinformed.

Fake newsis a type ofyellow journalismthat consists of deliberatemisinformationorhoaxes. Fake news is written and published with the intent to mislead in order to gain financially or politically, often with sensationalist, exaggerated, or patently false headlines that grab attention. Fake news often employs eye-catching headlines or entirely fabricated news stories in order to increase readership and, in the case of internet-based stories, online sharing and Internet click revenue.In the latter case, profit is made in a similar fashion to sensational online "clickbait" headlines and relies on advertising revenue generated from this activity, regardless of the veracity of the published stories.

>>143454
>deliberatemisinformationorhoaxes
Well that shit didn't translate well at all.

Here's a shortcut to figure out what fake news is. If it's designed to be clickbait, chances are it's fake news. So when you see a title along the lines of "Is this image REAL or FAKE? 99% of people got this wrong!" or "Did Hillary EAT children while in mexico?" you get the idea.

>>143441

To add to this, the majority probably thinks that biased news and fake news are the same thing, when they're not. Biased news is true but slanted in favor of one side or position, everything is factually accurate but the reporter or news team may editorialize to push a narrative. Fake news is either entirely fabricated or a mix of falsehoods and facts, using the facts to make the falsehoods seem legitimate. Furthermore, as >>143454 says, the fabrication has to be intentional on the part of the journalist as well, either fully creating the story or failing to vet the source (professional negligence).

Few things in the mainstream media are genuine fabrications, and notably these instances aren't the work of the media as a whole but a few individuals dramatizing events that didn't happen (ex. claiming they took fire during a helicopter ride). Most of the time I see cries of "fake news" it's just biased news or, even worse, non-biased news that doesn't fit their world-view and pretend doesn't exist.

WOMEN ARE THE OPPRESSORS! EVERY YEAR WOMEN WORLDWIDE KILL 50-60 MILLION OF THEIR OWN BABIES BY WAY OF ABORTION, WOMEN ARE EXTERMINATING THE FUTURE OF MANKIND(BOTH FEMALE AND MALE FETUSES OF ALL RACES)! FEMINISM IS MENTAL ILLNESS, IT'S DESTROYING ALL PEOPLE!

>>143454
I'm gonna say fake news is news that's fake. Your definition was wonky and dumb sounding lol

>>143454
>>143454

Jesus Christ, the goal post shifting.

If it's made up nonsense with no basis in reality, it's fake. Biased and sensationalized news is very real and has been for decades, but news reporting Trump declassified sensitive info to the Russian's is not "fake", contrary to the screaming Trump shills.

>>143584
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news_website

>>143586
>>143584

Whoops, my bad. Wrong thread.

>>143432
Kek is winning. Soon, we'll begin the säuberung, and the fires from liberal media will stretch across the new reich.

>>143584
The news is not grounded in fact, and is trying to alter the mindset of the reader toward a fictitious end for the benefit of alterior motives

If I release a story that says "Trumps Executive Order on National Parks Could Spell the End for the Grand Canyon" that's a bullshit headline with a motive, ergo fake news. Lots of maybes and insights, not alot of facts, alot of annonymous officials, not alot of actual people. Adgenda driven news pretending to be legit.

>>143441
>>143441
You can die or at least leave imo

>>143593
>The news is not grounded in fact

We know it happened. Your standard is that it's impossible to establish that Trump declassified sensitive information to Russian government officials, but that's a dumb standard.

Trump supporters, it's possible to know things happened without having been physically present in the room when they happen. This is accomplished by means of arguments crafted with evidence, logic, expert consensus. "you can't prove it, anything's possible" is retarded; this line of thinking offers no predictive value in any field.

>>143593
Man, the report came out in WaPo saying he declassified the info, Turmp supporters roundly decried it as fake news, then Trump himself admitted he did it.

It's at this point that you apologize you were wrong, that people do leak to media outlets like WaPo and in order to protect those sources they don't release personally identifiable information, and WaPo is a credible news outlet, and you were wrong to cite that as fake news.

>>143598
Ok, by your logic alot of Democrats are automatically culpable in their own scandals as well?

You're saying everyone should just gobble up article assertions at the drop of the hat with no independent thought? I wouldn't want that for anyone, left or right.

>>143601
>John Podesta works at the Wash
>CIA outlet (Bezos)
>Leftist
>Illegal leaks left and right via CIA

Yeah no thanks

>>143607
And yet apparently WaPo and their anonymous sources were proven right, and Trump supporters wrong. If you have any interest at all in fact they should concede they were wrong.

>>143602
>no independent thought
If you were capable of independent thought, why call WaPo fake news? Why not say the leaker is leaking fake information?

This is exactly the problem; Trump supporters lack independent thought.

People in government leak to WaPo BECAUSE it's a trusted news outlet, and because their business model relies on trust with their audience. It doesn't make sense for them to start fabricating stories because if they were caught, they'd lose major credibility which is their one selling point.

Sure enough, we have a case here where someone leaks to WaPo, and any human capable of independent thought will understand why the identity of a leaker would be kept in confidence. WaPo is falsely accused of fabricating news. And then Trump himself confirms what the leaker told WaPo and WaPo is vindicated on the story.

If at this point you have evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that leakers and WaPo have been acting on actual evidence, and you don't reevaluate your own position on them as a Trump supporter, you've no right to be talking about anyone else lacking the capacity for independent thought.

You have a conclusion in mind, and you're sticking to it, no matter what the evidence shows.

>>143454
fake news is sounds fake to be believed in, MSM is a company, any company have got only one goal they share, survivability of the company, and in MSM case, news is their product, without a product the company would be losing out, so as many products as they can fabricate, it is all for that one final goal. the company's well being and the employees. Americans are starting to see the fake trends they put out, the poll results clearly shows how untrusted these MSM can be.

>>143432
>poll-majority
>/pol/-majority
Not really news tbh familiadingdong

>>143611
>Your only argument is appeal to authority
>WashPost has been caught making bs stories over and over again
>Podesta works there - it's not unbiased and has a deep establishment adgenda
>independent thought is deciding coming to a conclusion based on your own knowledge and will, not taking the word of our beloved intelligence agencies

>>143432
>The Harvard-Harris online survey of 2,006 registered voters was conducted between May 17 and May 20. The partisan breakdown is 36 percent Democrat, 32 percent Republican, 29 percent independent and 3 percent other.
>2k people
>An exclusive poll you need to be signed up for in order to receive

>Legitimate representation of American populace.

>>143614
>LALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU, CIA-CLINTON-MEDIA CONSPIRACY, I DON'T NEED EVIDENCE I GUZZLE RED PILLS

>>143432
> People think the MSM is fake news,

Much of it is and the open bias is visible to all.

> yet is shown in gyms, restaurants, airports, and waiting rooms all over the country.

We can't control what's on tv but we also don't have to believe the lies.

>>143593

Jesus fuck you're an idiot. The news agencies are not responsible if illiterate goons like you mistake editorials for news pieces.

>>143612
>the poll results clearly shows how untrusted these MSM can be.
Surely you don't mean UNTRUSTWORTHY. That would constitute an appeal to popularity.
The way capitalism works is that people patronize businesses according to their ability to meet a given demand in the most cost-effective way possible. Well some media companies do this by building trust with their audience; like WaPo. They have some vested interest in publishing factual material because otherwise they risk losing their audience. There are other business models in media, but delivering factual news is an actual need the public has, so unsurprisingly some media outlets in the media marketplace cater to that.

>>143614
>Your only argument is appeal to authority
Appeal to authority isn't a fallacy when the authority you're sighting is an unbiased expert on the topic.

>WashPost has been caught making bs stories over and over again
>alluding to the existence of evidence without presenting it

>independent thought is deciding coming to a conclusion based on your own knowledge and will, not taking the word of our beloved intelligence agencies
The onus is on you to prove the existence of a mass government conspiracy. It's more reasonable and far better evidenced that Trump and much of his cabinet are just incompetent and malicious.

>>143607

WaPo's anonymous sources have been right, what? 3 times since inauguration? The anonymous source boogeyman which conveniently was never an issue until Trump came along is getting flaccid.

>>143432
MediaBiasFactCheck.com

Who do you trust the most: A communist that preaches inconvenient truths, or a capitalists that spews comfortable lies.

>>143675
That's a really dumb analogy.

>>143432
Just because a polls says people believe the publish fake news doesn't actually mean they publish fake news. Polls say people believe that aliens visit Earth and that Jesus is coming back too but that doesn't mean either of those things is actually going to happen anytime soon.

>>143680
The issue seems to be more that people just dont trust the news anymore because of either obvious bias or the lack of credible sources. News isnt like science where public perception is irrelevant, they need people to trust them.

>>143432
They are correct

>>143536
>Biased news is true but slanted in favor of one side or position,
That is self-contradictory

>>143622

>Implies WashPost is an expert in anything

Oh jeez

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04/washpost-is-richly-rewarded-for-false-news-about-russia-threat-while-public-is-deceived/

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/05/15/mcmaster-didnt-happen-trump-russia-classified-info-sot.cnn

http://www.theeventchronicle.com/fake-news-agenda/russia-hysteria-infects-washpost-false-story-hacking-u-s-electric-grid/

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01/fake-news-wapo-not-tell-whole-story-dc-national-guard-chiefs-resignation-video/

WashPost is liberal. Podesta, DNC pedophile extrainaire works there unironically as an editor.

>On us is on my to prove the conspiracy

No friend, it's on you to prove YOUR conspiracy. I never said there was a conspiracy, just biased private networks owned by billionaire leftys who work with the CIA.

>>143682
People are just waking up to the ideological investment required in pursuing a demographic.

These news sources need money. In order to get money, they need an audience. Merit is expensive. Ideology is cheap.

>>143699
>posts 3 dubious sources and a cnn interview with McMaster
>as if that proves anything
Try again, trump shill

>>143728
You're both only really driving it home, how biased a lot of news is, if in a somewhat backwards way.

People are mostly interested in news that represents and supports their existing beliefs.

>>143727
What I don't understand is why the demographic can't simply be "people interested in unbiased reporting"
I mean, surely I'm not the only one who would rather have a factual and unbiased news piece rather than one that merely reaffirms my beliefs. Frankly, anything that only serves to reaffirm my beliefs is useless to me - I'd rather have my beliefs challenged by the truth, because then I might actually obtain something valuable.

>>143729
If all it does is supports your existing beliefs, is it even news? Or just some corporate jerkoff scheme to gather a target audience and advertise to them. I mean that's all sites like breitbart, msnbc, mic.com, huffpo and buzzfeed really are when you think about it.

>>143734
I think it's really, genuinely difficult to write news without encoding it with some sort of internal bias. Word choice expresses a lot about the meaning of the text. And when you're trying to convey a meaning to somebody, you're trying to share your frame of reference to them.

>an explosion went off in the stadium this morning. 20 are dead.
vs
>an explosion went off in the stadium this morning. 20 were killed.

The first statement defines the victims (which is also a loaded word) as "are dead" No actor is implied here. but "are dead" implies a state of being that is incidental to the situation. The explosion could have been some accident or it could have been deliberate. The second statement implies that there was an actor. Somebody did the killing. But even if the explosion could have been gas canisters next to a faulty fuse, it was sill somebody's fault right? Just one word in a sentence here conveys whether or not somebody is at fault, whether or not it was an actual bomb.

>>143730
I think that stripping off even the most superficial layers of bias is difficult, and that it takes a certain level of introspection. The kind of meta cognition necessary to understand one's biases is something that I'm told is pretty rare for people to do on a regular basis. I don't think you can really step outside of your biases to a degree. They're the prejudices you pick up over the span of your life, that dictate how you react to situations. They're sort of necessary to living, unless you want to spend most of your life in indecision.

There's a ton of bad shit going on with the mainstream media, but if you can't tell the difference between CNN being biased toward Clinton and Alex Jones raving about how Joan Rivers was assassinated to cover up the secret about Michelle Obama being a man then you're a fucking idiot.

>>143675
>MediaBiasFactCheck.com
Go starve yourself you dumb ass communist

>>143614

That's not even what an appeal to authority is, you turgid simpleton. Scuttle off to /pol/ and let the adults do their own work.

>>143806
Damn, what an edgelord.

>>143811
>"WashPost is a a highly accredited and prestigious news source, how can you disagree with them?!"

Appeal to authority is litterally saying "According to person 1, Y is true.
Therefore, Y is true."

Turgid simpleton? Jesus I bet you watch the daily show

>>143846
I barely typed anything cry baby

>>143869
your language tells me otherwise.

>>143610
They weren't actually wrong though.

>>143619
Thank god there is fair and balanced FoxNews or we wouldn't know how biased the MSM is, eh?

>>144523
Fox is liberal MSM too.

>>143622
>sighting
Oh for ducks sake you fucking moron.

>>143730
>What I don't understand is why the demographic can't simply be "people interested in unbiased reporting"

Because that's Fox News's demographic.

>>144523
FOX is controlled opposition. However it's starting to show its true colors now that they are getting rid of the non-neocons. I don't watch FOX, but it's still only marginally better than CNN, MSNBC, ABC,NBC, CBS, WaPo, HuffPo and the like. Only because they accidentally got some real voices in there. Now that they are kicking them out, they are as worthless as the rest of the mainstream media

>>143687
You're not very smart.

Something can be true factually - i.e, "at 9am I had a cup of coffee."

A biased news source could say: "at 9am, anon had a cup of coffee, was he nursing a hangover?"

It's still factually correct, but it pushes a narrative or suggests things without claiming their veracity.

Ok if "fake news " hurts your feelings then let's use the word "misleading" but I think you know what they mean

>>143601
You're making the very obvious and retarded mistake of generalizing the reaction of all Trump supporters. You're a dipshit for this.
You just painted a false counternarrative to yours to make your position seem stronger, meanwhile everyone I know reacted with a "well, he's the fucking president and he gets to decide what people should and should not know in terms of national security."
Which you cannot attack because every fucking president since the USA has had national security to protect has held this power and has exercised it.
Get the fuck back to plebbit, you faggot.

>>144641
It ceases to be news at that point m8, it's just baseless conjecture.
When the facts and truths of a story take a back seat to the bullshit biased propagandizing that modern news outlets like the shit of shit WaPo release, it is no longer news. You cannot call that second headline a news story, it is a propaganda piece or at best, an opinion article.
You faggots always love to contort definitions and control narratives, your sort are the most intellectually dishonest people there are and I can't wait for ropes to be hanging from trees for you.

>>144724
I don't understand the tirade from the last bit of your post. I'm not suggesting that news should be biased.

But you're kidding yourself if you think that the latter example I gave isn't representative of many news outlets. And that isn't me saying news should be that way, you mongoloid retard.

>>143432
Why is this surprising? All news websites have published a piece of yellow journalism or a fake story. Having the population be skeptical of the news sources is a good thing and will ideally lead them to cross examine the sources and find the absolute truth.

I would be more worried if the majority of people blindly followed their chosen station to be entirely honest.

>>144722
Would you classify everyone as you know as the majority or Trump supporters or an incredible minority?

>>143454
and you really don't see how this loophole can be used to manipulate the general populations perception to propagate an entities agenda?

Are you really that dense?

>>144765
>But you're kidding yourself if you think that the latter example I gave isn't representative of many news outlets.
Which is why no one trusts news outlets anymore and why most news outlets deserve nothing more than the title of propaganda machine or opinion outlets, including the oh so shit Washington Post.

>>144888
I can do so no more than you can and already attempted to do. With such, I'm not claiming that my experience with others on the matter is universal, I'm simply showing that you attempted to paint all which oppose you with a false representation to discredit them all in one fell swoop like a two bit shitkicker. So please, fuck off back to your plebbit hugbox, you wannabe intellectual dimestore whore.

>>144901
Fine? This has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Read the NY times, Washington Post sucks.

>>144906
>has nothing to do with what I said
It's about you trying to broaden what news can be and being completely wrong.
>NY Times
>not horribly biased
Topkek, you must be retarded or a troll

>>144969
>not horribly biased
horribly biased and true?

>>144974
NyTimes WashPost and CNN are CIA / Bezos and Carlos Slims are propoganda for toppling the Trump administration

>>143602
>You're saying everyone should just gobble up article assertions at the drop of the hat with no independent thought?

That isn't what anon was saying at all

>>144984
You are dumb. Kys.