you are telling when trump shouts fake news, he might be telling the truth.
*mind blown*
in other news. Santa Claus is real.
Funny thing - the first thing the Spiegel did (ok, about the fifth - in the second third of the article..) is to look up other cases where that happened before. They arent common. But they found two.
One of them american, if my memory serves me well..
The thing with fake news is not that they dont exist - its rather their narrative (I'm using this word too much..
) framing.
First and foremost. If you are in the business of reporting stories, and your "best" tool of the trade is to "have at least two independent sources that are congruent on a story" - which you also don't always adhere to in some cases - because that thing was made up by an american news outlet decades in the past. You are also reporting false stories.
In other astonishing news, youtubers almost never know what they are talking about.
Set aside - that in this version of the story fake news - that are actually entirely imagined - from a journalist (!!) nonetheless is different and more problematic in nature--
- what "fake news" actually transports is almost a sense of betrayal - that strangely enough I've never seen from people towards commercial influencers, who do that every freaking day, because its their "not really a job".
(Where is the outrage against "Hey - I bought this product because of fake news?" - oh it doesnt exist. How strange...)
Journalists are actually supposed to tell their perspective of the truth, if the circumstances permit it. They are supposed to research a story, they are supposed to fact check, they are supposed to pick up the telephone or get out there and talk to people.
They also didn't betray anyone "in bulk" "in general" at least not as far as I've seen.
The worst things that you could accuse them of doing - is underreporting rightwing sentiments of people in Europe (in the US they weren rectified in the least, so I'd not call them sentiments, I'd call them something different.. ) towards migration. Being too close and too cosy to established power structures (thats why you read different media outlets - but not "everything"), which (feeding them exclusivity for tameness) is pretty much the entire relationship of people in power with the press since - idk, the french courtsystem? (I picked something..
) - And not telling people what they wanted to hear, mostly politically. Also because you've gotten political shifts that media wasnt anticipating.
And now - every second word out of everyones mouth, when talking to a - or about a journalist is "fake news". Boy - you all learned a new word, didn't you.
Also the far right uses it distinctly to discredit almost the entire media system. Which people already weakened, by thinking, that social media would "replace it anyhow", because they didnt know what they were talking about, and their days were long.
So if you some how can - please dont use this phrase lightly. You are certainly doing no one a favor - and probably are only doing it to feel better about you not caring much about media at all. And no, youtube doesnt count. Podcasts maybe. But only If I'm having a good day.
(Mostly commentary, not research.)
In this specific case - use it, because this needs "embelishment" and overdrawn analogies - and also for once, the fake news sentiment actually fits..
But then at least think further. In science reporting, for example you had the problem for years, that journalists didn't understand the actual studies (almost regardless of field), and if they did - in many cases they embellished the findings for a good headline. No one knows how to tackle that (they are now teaching actual "press relations for scientists" in high profile universities.
). And your question, if this is also "fake news" doesnt help either.
The question if "fake news" journalism is responsible for the current status quo - or can be seen as a big structural issue in society - still gets an emphatic and all encompassing - NO. Not at all, not even in the slightest.
Its just that most people - for the first time ever - noticed on facebook, that there is more than the major channels newsanchors perspective to the world out there. And it probably scared them. But then they thought, that now they "were in the know", because of some outlet of questionable repute - and that all journalists where lying to them. Or most of them. Whatever.
And because journalism thanks to your advertising platforms of your choice, had a little bit of a financing problem by then (what craigslist is not in "the papers" anymore?), they couldnt tell people that they didn't care about you if you thought that way. You had them by the balls. And now you will "fake news" comment on or question them until they are dead. (Overembellished image..
)
