fake news = lies

1. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   This is abuse of freedom of speech.
   How can it be stopped?
   
   Can it be stopped by legislation or by ceasing to buy the paper or watch the news?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      CHRIS57posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Freedom of speech in democracies will supposedly always protect fake news.
      
      There were fake news at all times in history. Always served propaganda purposes.
      
      What about this one? Napoleon Bonaparte was not short. In fact he stood some 1,68m or 5ft6 tall. Not bad for the beginning of the 19th century.
      The fake "size" was made up by the British at that time.
      
      You can immunize against fake news by knowledge, analytic thinking and personal experience. Otherwise you may fall for wrong information.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         ... and by informing the youth not to thrust the media outlets.
         and to read ...
         ... and research
         and think for themselves ...  based on the wisdom they gather from great writers and thinkers of past and present times.
         
         Yay, places where books are still maintained! !
         
         Yay, freedom of speech! (within the boundaries of common decency and morals.)

         replyreport
   2. 87

      tsmogposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Word of Mouth has always been the most powerful form of communication used for obtaining information, which is thought by most to be from an authoritative and trusted source. No matter truth or not, fact or fiction, innocently provided knowledge or purposefully intent of deception of such it will not go away. No newspaper, TV broadcast, or social media post has the power as word of mouth from a person to a person.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         ... unless people stop talking to each other.
         think cancel culture and the importance of being politically correct.
         Also many people do rely on the various types of news and media outlets for their information, out of sheer laziness.

         replyreport
         1. 87

            tsmogposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Do you really think people will stop talking to each other? C'mon . . .

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               ... we do talk less to one another. Everyone is so afraid of offending the other!

               replyreport
               1. 90

                  MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  +1,000,000

                  replyreport
      2. 81

         Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         It is also the best way to attract customers for any business.
         Why do you make this point?
         I am not saying the point is not interesting: It is!

         replyreport
   3. 84

      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Kathryn,  I feel your frustration over some years we have witnessed many media reports that need to be walked back due to not being true. The unfortunate thing many retractions are never seen, and the false report grows and remains alive on social media.
      
      However, free speech is very important for all of us. as citizens.  So, it may be unwise to limit free speech due to fake news. Fake news is a problem, for sure... But we as citizens have the ability to research reports and choose our media outlets carefully. We have the right to turn off a talk jock or not click into a website.
      
      In my view ratings can provide a good indication of which media networks American's have come to trust. CNN has lost nearly 70% of its viewers since Trump left office. It appears their many retracted reports have provided them a consequence that is reflected in their ratings.

      replyreport
   4. 81

      peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I think we have to teach people, starting at schools. How to recognize fake news from real news. What is the source of the information?
      Think before you share a story.
      
      We live in an information overkill society, and we have to adjust to it.
      I think kids will be better at this than we are. As they grow up with a mobile glued in their hands.

      replyreport
2. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   ... who is funding the fake news/lies is another question.
   Maybe find out and kick the person or group of persons out of the country.
   
   
   Old British ditty from simpler times:
   
   Lion and the Unicorn
   Fighting for the crown
   Lion and the Unicorn
   All around the town
   Some gave them white bread
   And some gave them brown
   Some gave them black bread
   And kicked them out of town.

   replyreport
   1. 90

      MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Sorry, as much as we would like to shut them up, our Constitution gives them Freedom of Speech (1st Amendment rights). That is unless they pose a threat to either physical or national security or defame someone's character. Or at least it used to. Now seems like everything except so-called "hate speech" is free speech. And what is hate speech anyway? Things that my father said quite frequently after WWII is considered hate speech today. (The generation gap at work.)
      Oh, yeah, this was about running fake news out of town. I think the harm depends on how much of a threat the fake news is to the country, but the majority seem to disagree with me. One of the problems with our Constitution is that it doesn't spell out the actual coverage, it is merely an outline. The Congress passes laws to define and fill in the blanks. The trouble is that now Congress can't get its act together to spell out and define these laws.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         I'm always open
         
         Stick and stone may break my bones, but words will never hurt me
         
         What's with all these online bullies causing suicide?

         replyreport
         1. 81

            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Interesting:
            "The libel/slander distinction is blurred when considered against the backdrop of how we currently communicate. Many town hall meetings, including a recent Presidential meeting, occur ―live‖ online. Rather than raising their hands from the audience, people are encouraged to submit questions via Facebook and Twitter. The classroom bully is no longer the biggest child in the sandbox, but rather the elementary school student who is most adept at creating malignant blog posts. Coworkers forgo face to face communication, instead sending an e-mail, lessening the time necessary to leave their desks. Text messaging, tweeting and blogging are now more regularly replacing the face to face communications that so frequently occurred during the time of slander‘s origin."

            replyreport
         2. 90

            MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Some people are just more emotionally fragile than others. You are a strong person. That type of bullying is not covered by the 1st Amendment.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Freedom of speech is for (the sake of) some(thing) good as opposed to some(thing) not good. Bullying is not good. Slander is not good. Lies and fake news stories are very harmful and detrimental on many levels. Who trusts the media anymore which uses its influence as propaganda for the highest bid?
               
               The founding fathers and framers explained that a democracy without morals and human values is impossible.
               These morals and values are common to every person on earth and serve as boundaries. You can't legislate EVERYTHING!
               
               Side Note: Prince Harry now living in America said our freedom of speech is "Bonkers."
               ... because it is less so in Britain?
               
               wondering

               replyreport
               1. 90

                  MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't know the slander and libel laws of the UK, but I do know those of the U.S., at least before the wonders of technology blurred the lines between black and white. I skimmed through the pdf you listed above written by the UK professor. I disagree that technology should make any difference in the way the courts treat defamation of character whether spoken, written, or online.
                  I haven't checked to see if any of the basic laws in the U.S. have been changed in the last 30 years when I got my MA, but at that time there were three categories of people, with each having a different degree of protection:
                  1. private citizen -- has the highest protection under the libel and slander laws. Proof is on the person or entity who is charged with the crime.
                  2. public figure -- has a slightly lower degree of protection than the "innocent" private citizen because this person does put himself or herself into the limelight. but the burden of proof is still mostly on the accuser.
                  3. politician -- has little to very little protection. While the whole burden of proof is never on the victim of slander or libel, more of it does fall on the politician to prove that he/she was undeserving or innocent of the statements made against that person.
                  
                  Fake news, or "Yellow journalism" has existed as long as this country has had newspapers. The term " yellow journalism" was coined in the 1890s when William Randolph Hearst and others of that time owned newspapers that may not have used "real news" to sell their newspapers. While they may not have published out and out lies, they exaggerated and stretched the truth. Since then some of the news media has continued to use yellow journalism to sell newspapers. I personally don't see why the Idea behind the laws should be any different from 1776 or 1890, but technologies that have morphed into the new "fake news" do call for a new approach to dealing with them.

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     I concur.

                     replyreport
            2. 81

               Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               The people who commit suicide are not necessarily fragile. They are human beings with their modes of adapting.
               Bullying is very detrimental to those (the youth) who are trying to adapt.
               Acceptance is very important to human beings.
               Acceptance is food to the soul.
               Without, it withers...
               
               and takes its own life.

               replyreport
3. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   Freedom of speech is for some good. Not some bad.
   
   Common sense was thought to endure.
   Why hasn't it?

   replyreport
4. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   The article provides new support for the contention that courts and legislatures should treat libel and slander uniformly and should abolish the archaic requirement of proof of special damages, a burden traditionally reserved for the spoken word. Maintaining slander in the Twitter Age, with its requirement of proof of economic harm, vitiates the common law purpose of defamation. Treating all defamation similarly promotes fairness for plaintiffs seeking to rehabilitate their damaged reputation and provides predictability to those bringing defamation claims. A thoughtful and orderly treatment of technospeech mandates that courts and legislatures put the proverbial final nail in the coffin of slander.
   
   FROM:
   https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/161441058.pdf

   replyreport
   1. 87

      tsmogposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Did you read it?

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         - some of it and not all, why?
         
         "A thoughtful and orderly treatment of  t e c h n o s p e e c h  mandates that courts and legislatures put the proverbial final  n a i l  in the coffin of
            s l a n d e r."
         
         hear the pounding?

         replyreport
5. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   PS Morals must be taught to the youth. I do not believe that they are built-in.
   But even if they do naturally exist within the psyche of a child, those instincts for right and wrong must be reinforced by parents, teachers and society.
   
   
   The liars in the media must be pointed out, exposed and given whatever consequences are fair.
   
   What consequences are not only fair but do-able?
   
   I mean you can't kick them out of town ... or can you??

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Castlepalomaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Rarely any Media reported in the news today. Its all teleprompter to them and they repeat it back like broken parrots. It would easier if Biden just turned around his teleprompter so we can read it, instead of confusing us with his old fairytales.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Lol!

         replyreport
6. 93

   Nathanvilleposted 3 years ago

   Certainly, as Chris points out, ‘fake news’ is as old as civilisation.  The one from the Victorian era that sticks in my mind is the fictitious story publish in various 19th newspapers around the world about ‘Paul Denton’ a Methodist Preacher in Texas.  The report in the newspapers is just a yarn, which I’m sure many people at the time truly believed; whereas, in actual fact, contrary to the impression given by the newspapers, Paul Denton was a fictionalized account based on the life of John B Denton, a pioneer preacher who went to Texas in 1837 and became a lawyer.  In 1841 he went on to engage in Indian fighting; but he was unsuccessful in this endeavour as he was the only Texas killed in the battle with the Indians.
   
   If you’re interested in reading this 19th century newspaper article, the link is:-  https://www.nathanville.uk/religion/pau … of-america
   
   Yes, ‘Fake News’ is a big problem, which the EU & UK Governments are taking steps to battle.  I don’t know what, if any, steps the USA Government is taking?
   
   Specifically to the UK:
   •    British Newspapers still have ‘Freedom of the Press’.
   •    British News Media on TV & Radio are heavily ‘Regulated’.
   •    Sensitive Government Departments e.g. ONS (Office of National Statistics) are independent of the Government and answerable only to Parliament.
   •    Legislation is in the pipeline to make the host to ‘social media’ platforms legally responsible.
   
   1.    British TV & Radio have been heavily regulated in the UK for as long as they’ve existed e.g. all TV & Radio News Channels have a legal obligation to present the news that is factual, non-bias and balanced.  Government bodies, such as Ofcom, who are independent of the Government and only answerable to Parliament, ensure the News Channels on TV & Radio stick to within the law.
   
   Therefore, News seen on British TV is reliable source of news.
   
   2.    The importance of keeping Government Departments, who publish sensitive data independent of Government, and answerable only to Parliament, is to ensure that no UK Government can influence or manipulate statistics or data for political gain.
   Therefore, data and statistics publish to the Public Domain on such Government websites in the UK is a reliable source of data.
   
   3.    The two main areas for the UK that are currently the biggest problems for ‘fake news’ is Social Media e.g. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook etc., especially Facebook, and British Newspapers.  Hence the current legislation being processed through Parliament.
   
   With regard to Social Media Companies like Facebook, the new legislation will make Facebook legally responsible for what’s published on its platform e.g. Once the legislation becomes law, if Facebook is too slow in removing ‘fake news’ then Facebook will be prosecuted for its publication.
   
   As regards the Press; they are fearful that the British Government will include the Press in the Legislation; therefore the Press is lobbying the Government to exclude them on the bases that they will ‘self-regulate’.
   
   As things stand at the moment; with regards to British Newspapers; its knowing which ones report honestly, and which ones engage in propaganda and ‘fake news’.  Any British person with a reasonable level of education know what the different newspapers stand for, and which ones engage heavily in ‘fake news’ or ‘political propaganda’.  Unfortunately, the less well educated people e.g. the lower working classes are just too gullible, and will tend to believe anything they read!
   
   A simple guide to the main British Newspapers are:-
   
   •    The Mail (Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday) specialises in ‘Fake News’; so much so that they’ve been banned by Wikipedia as a ‘reliable reference source’, and are frequently used by Fox News in the USA to spread lies about the UK.
   
   •    The Sun:  Conservative (right-wing capitalist) supporting newspaper:  Heavily Reliant on political propaganda, and therefore not a reliable new source:  Their target audience is the lower working classes.
   
   •    The Mirror:  Labour (left-wing socialist) supporting newspaper:  Heavily Reliant on political propaganda, and therefore not a reliable new source:  Their target audience is the lower working classes.
   
   •    The Independent:  As the name suggests, they are politically neutral, and factual; and thus a good source of information:  Their target audience is the middle classes.
   
   •    The Guardian:  Labour (left-wing socialist) supporting newspaper:  They take pride in being factual; and thus a good source of information:  There target audience is the upper working class/middle class Labour voters.
   
   •    The Times (Financial Times/Sunday Times):  A Conservative (right-wing capitalist) supporting newspaper:  They don’t indulge in propaganda and print factually, so a reliable source of information:  Their target audience is the middle class.
   
   •    The Telegraph (nicknamed the Tory Graph by the left):   A Conservative (right-wing capitalist) supporting newspaper:  They don’t indulge in propaganda and print factually, so a reliable source of information:  Their target audience is the upper working class and Middle Class.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      The question, in the case of FB and other social media (as well as MSM) is what is "fake"?  Who decides what is truth and what is not?  If a post or claim does not align with the official government position it is "fake" and must be removed?
      
      Sounds like the British govt. will designate an official censor - someone that will read all posts and demand that those they don't like be censored by FB.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         official censor ... hmmmm....

         replyreport
      2. 93

         Nathanvilleposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         The Official Body who will be responsible for the enforcement in the UK will be Ofcom (The Office of Communications). 
         
         Ofcom, who are independent of the Government, and answerable to only Parliament, is the government-approved regulatory and competition authority for the broadcasting, telecommunications and postal industries of the UK:  In simple terms, a watchdog.
         
         Ofcom set the ‘Standards’ (rules/codes) to comply with British Law.  For example, Ofcom’s definition of ‘hate speech’ (which is a criminal offence in the UK) is as follows:
         
         "all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance on the grounds of disability, ethnicity, social origin, sex, gender, gender reassignment, nationality, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation, colour, genetic features, language, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth or age.”
         
         Ofcom are not the police, so they can’t bring a criminal prosecution themselves, but they are given extensive powers by the Government.  For example, in 2010 Ofcom revoked the licences of four free-to-air TV channels for promoting adult chat services during daytime hours e.g. took them off the air (closed them down), and fined them £157,250 ($220,000).
         
         Ofcom, like any other watchdog, rely very heavily on complaints from the British Public.  And Ofcom’s procedure for dealing with complaints is to make extensive use of ‘Consultations’ with industry and the public; to help it make decisions based upon the evidence presented.
         
         The ‘Consultation’ processes begin with publishing documents on its website, asking for views and responses.  A plain English summary version is also published if the documents are perceived to be long and complicated.   A period of usually of 10 weeks is allowed for interested persons, companies or organisations to send in their responses to the consultation.
         
         After this consultation period, Ofcom publishes all the responses on its website, excluding any personal or confidential information. Ofcom then prepares a summary of the responses received, and uses this information as a basis for its decisions.
         
         The following videos might explain in more detail:
         
         •    What is Ofcom:  https://youtu.be/cdVUr-NrXng
         
         •    Social Media: Ofcom to become Britain’s first internet regulator: https://youtu.be/IXxaO7HJUAc
         
         •    Clearcast, Ofcom and the ASA. UK TV Advertising regulations explained. (Ofcom’s role in Advertising in the UK):  https://youtu.be/J5yK5-E5yno
         
         With reference to the last video; ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) in the UK has nothing to do with the Government; it’s a ‘self-regularity Authority’ set-up and paid for by the Media (newspapers etc.) themselves back in 1961.  And they’ve done such an excellent job at self-regulation that the UK Government has never needed to interfere.
         
         About the ASA and how they did in 2017:  https://youtu.be/exjLWHd_ksU

         replyreport
         1. 90

            MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            That sounds a lot like our Federal Communications Commission. When I worked in radio, I diligently kept up with communications laws, but I don't anymore so I'm not sure what all they are covering now, but the Net Neutrality Act was passed in 2015 which stated that the FCC did not regulate access to the internet. The FCC has always regulated the airways and passed such regulatory acts as the Fairness Doctrine and the Equal Time Rule, both of which had a chilling effect on broadcaster's desires to air any political advertising. The doctrine was repealed in 1987, but still left a lingering distaste in both television and radio media.
            At that time there was actually no compelling need to pass regulations against hate speech, adult content and other later content that might be considered distasteful. This may be one factor in why our FCC does not regulate the internet. Or since the internet is a global medium, maybe they've thrown up their hands in surrender to their lack of powers to regulate anything that comes to our shores when it doesn't originate here.

            replyreport
            1. 93

               Nathanvilleposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Thanks, it's was interesting to read your comments about the FCC.

               replyreport
   2. 81

      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      oh, you make me read!

      replyreport
7. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

   It seems there is inappropriate censorship and appropriate censorship. In England, appropriate censorship is used to curb the the abuses of freedom of speech.* (see below) Here, we are not so sophisticated. No, we think freedom of speech must be preserved even for woke idiots and every liar, bully or slanderer.
    
   Appropriate boundaries would curb abuse of freedom of speech. Thank You, Nathanville, for revealing the British way. In my view, it sets a good example in curbing speech which is harmful to a nation's citizens / citizenry. Freedom within boundaries actually helps the case of freedom ... which after all, is for the GOOD of being able to communicate.
   
   
   *  " British TV & Radio have been heavily regulated in the UK for as long as they’ve existed e.g. all TV & Radio News Channels have a legal obligation to present the news that is factual, non-bias and balanced.  Government bodies, such as Ofcom, who are independent of the Government and only answerable to Parliament, ensure the News Channels on TV & Radio stick to within the law.
   
   Therefore, News seen on British TV is reliable source of news."
   Nathanville

   replyreport