Is News News?

With all the talk of Fake News, what is it? What do you define it as?

I may be biased but is it more than an attempt of legacy media and other established interests to try and discredit new sources of information and hold on to their waning power of controlling narratives? This power has waned in part due to increases in technology and their inability to keep up with that and more daringly their own interior decay in standards and integrity. It is as much their fault as it is the ingenuity and effort of new sources. The demand for the truth was there. They stopped providing it.

FAKE NEWS

If you do not have the time to read this post, at least watch excellent Firewall by Bill Whittle.

From BillWhittleChannel:

What cost Hillary Clinton the election? Well obviously it could not have had anything to do with her creepy, fake smile, her human-like warmth or the swamp of corruption and even treason that she has made for herself. It must be the Russians! And FAKE NEWS! In his latest FIREWALL, Bill Whittle picks apart this nonsense and places the blame squarely on the head of the sore loser responsible for her thrashing.

Is it Fake News if those presenting it are honestly presenting falsified and faked data and information, they believe to be factual?

John Williams: The Federal Government’s Fake News

from Mises Weekend :

Statistics issued by the federal government about the economy—from CPI to GDP—are fake, and our guest John Williams of Shadowstats.com explains how and why.

John is a vocal critic of modern economic reporting, which is manipulated to make the economy appear stronger than it is. So, he devoted his professional life to telling the real story, through statistics he painstakingly compiles himself. And, his statistics paint an alarming picture: virtually all “growth” in the US economy since the Crash of ’08 has been artificially engineered by the Fed, while the risk of debt contagion has increased.

Jeff and John discuss the “Fed tax,” what a radical increase in the monetary base means for your financial future, and whether Janet Yellen will be forced to resort to more QE in 2017.

This is a must-hear interview if you’re interested in sober economic reality.

http://www.shadowstats.com/

Is it Fake News if you simply get things wrong, or must they know things are wrong and reporting on them none the less?

FACT CHECKING

Facebook has begun to fact check fake news. Facebook has released information on how the system will work. They shall not remove the article, but after something has been reported, it shall be reviewed and have a warning label placed on it.

breitbart.facebook.factcheck.rantatonne.png

As Breitbart News pointed out, there is an issue of partisanship of third party fact checkers such as Snopes and Politifact stemming from funding both of the companies and of who they support amongst other biases.

Here is an example of issues of Fake News?

OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS FAKE

screen-shot-2016-12-17-at-10-57-13

USA TODAY, reputable source to most posts this story. Sheriff Joe Arpaio renews birther claims about Obama’s birth certificate. Commentors to the story and form other places claim that Arapio has a bias and lacks reliability. Few have addressed the content of the claim.

Story says that Arapio is once again aligned with Trump on the birther movement. It has been claimed that Clinton started the birther claims, which Politifact has denied, Snopes says it is false, Factcheck.org has it as inconclusive, Politico article from 2011 says yes, as does this one from Bloomberg in 2012. Many have weighed in and the matter is still unsettled.

No matter the take on who started it there is no denial that the Clinton campaign carried and ran with the claim. Trump at the time was a private citizen, she was a politician running for office.

RUSSIAN HACKERS

So, claims about Obama’s birth certificate forgery are to be dismissed as biased hackery from untrustworthy sources that seek to benefit from de-legitimizing him. On the inverse, though little if any proof of hacking has been provided we should believe that Russians were responsible for the hacking that provided the DNC and Podesta material to Wikileaks? Surely no one stands to benefit from de-legitimizing president-elect Trump. Again no denial of the content of the leaks, just disparaging how they were obtained.

The latest episode of Contra Krugman with Bob Murphy and Tom Woods was excellent.

“The CIA’s job description is to spread disinformation and topple regimes they don’t like. We’re not being crazy to think some people in the CIA are lying because they don’t like Trump.”
– Bob Murphy

So is this Russia hacking story Fake News? Who knows. Could it still be real if some of the hackers just happened to be Russian and it wasn’t a Russian government op? Should we trust the CIA and other local sources that are advancing this narrative?

President Obama recently declared that a response to Russian counterattacks is needed.Was he specifically talking about the election hacks? Is his belief impeachable.

If so, this meticulously sourced article from Breitbart News, Bombshell: ‘Washington Post’ Confirms Hillary Clinton Started the Birther Movement, a case is made that then candidate Obama believed that Hillary and her campaign originated the claim. You can see how long the Birther claims stuck around. These Russian espionage ones will likely remain for 4 to 8 years as well.

Assuming you correctly define and identify fake news at it’s release, what do you do about the older articles that have recently been proven true or false? Many that live in the present, with some glances to the future have little time or want to dwell on the past, let alone go back  and set things right or wrong.

Fake news or not, I implore you for the good of yourself and others to make some effort in confirming sources of things you read and accept. If it is of importance you can and should check opposing views and also follow up on the material.

On that note I shall end this with a revision. Below is a county map of the 2016 election results form the Guardian. Great interactive map if you have the time and interest. I had previously shared an image with the erroneous claim that Clinton won 57 counties to Trumps 3,084. Turns out she won exponentially more, 487 to his 2,626! Wonder why this isn’t being covered more. Couldn’t be because 7-1 is still a decisive drubbing.

guardian.map.election.rantatonne.png

Previous posts on this topic

This Tweet continues to be applicable

Advertisements

Let us know what you think

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s