mix4fix wrote:
The format of the media is irrevelant. If the magazine editor has the same ideology as the fake news media, there is no difference.
Sigh...
I better put this record on my VPI HW17 and give it a good scrubbing...it has a nasty skip.
Our approach to information or news is too either:
1. Witness it ourselves to see it complete in the original context...the problem is we cannot see everything or be everywhere. Sometimes no one except a select few have access. This takes a tremendous amount of time and effort to stay informed.
2. Read/watch a first person accounts of those who witness the event...the problem there is we are immediately subject to their recollections of the event and filtering of what was important, and, yes to an extent, an contextual editorializing of its meaning. This is basic "on the scene" reporting.
3. Read or watch top level summaries of the events (i.e. headlines, T.V. news stories). This is severe editing, since much is left out that provides context and can tend towards the sensational "gotcha". Hopefully it is just acting as an attention giver, and encouraging one to read a more detailed news account. However by itself this is where blatant bias can be introduced, even if not by intent.
4. Read a narrative or details of the event spliced together based on partial and highly restricted information, often after the fact. This is investigative journalism, trying to determine what is happening that is hidden from our view. Good reporting will take the story where leads, using reliable sources of information, bad reporting will ignore, discount, or even in rare cases fabricate information, using hearsay or anonymous, un-validated sources to construct a false narrative, either by intention or by mistake.
5. Read analysis - this is drawing together many events and information, and, based on "expert" knowledge, describe how these events could effect us personally, financially, etc. This is obviously a place where bias comes into play, since different people can look at the same information and draw different conclusions. The exception are areas like hard sciences, where the scientific method, process and peer review tends to drive to a consensus based on the information.
6. Read opinion - well, this is pretty obviously biased, can have good analysis, but the intent is to influence or state a position.
7. Consume Propaganda - An intentional distortion of the news, information or facts to reflect a fixed political point of view and to influence and control people's behavior. Not a good thing.
Good, responsible news sources will self-correct. They will state when they get something wrong and issue a retraction. They also try, maybe not successfully, differentiate between news, analysis, and opinion. Poor news sources will not correct errors but change the subject or build on the falsehood introduced to construct and maintain a false narrative. They do not make any distinction between opinion and news. News is presented and tailored to a particular audience, rather than a general audience, to influence and reinforce the biases of the audience, rather trying to truly inform and enlighten against the audience natural bias.
The question for us, is to recognize where bias occurs, determine what is that bias is, and understand where there is truth, and where there is distortion. Labeling something as "Fake News" to discount or ignore the source completely throws the baby out with the bath water, since bias can and is introduced anywhere in the process by any source of information. As I have stated before, "Fake News" often is used as denial and belittlement of sources, where the information conflicts with personal bias or the propaganda that is being disseminated. It is a way to attack, denigrate and marginalize the press so that information can be controlled by those in power.
David