Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
296,091
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 82:
Line 82: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Proposed new article structure
:::I suggest we stick to the subject rather than moving off into politics. My understanding is that "fake news" was in widespread use before the 2016 election and referred to news items designed to appealing to the emotion of the reader to the point that the item would be spread without investigating the truth of the underlying item. While some fake new items were designed to appeal to liberals and others to conservatives, these "fake news" authors did not care. "Fake news" was also a problem in other parts of the world and was a way to drive up ISIS recruitment. We need to explain that problem and possible solutions at a high school reading level without assuming that the reader knows a lot about it. The purpose of Conservapedia is to write articles like that, not to re-argue the latest headlines. There is so many bad examples in the current article that the meaning of "fake news" is lost in a blur. Perhaps another editor can suggest a positive path forward. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 16:24, 7 April 2017 (EDT)
:::I suggest we stick to the subject rather than moving off into politics. My understanding is that "fake news" was in widespread use before the 2016 election and referred to news items designed to appealing to the emotion of the reader to the point that the item would be spread without investigating the truth of the underlying item. While some fake new items were designed to appeal to liberals and others to conservatives, these "fake news" authors did not care. "Fake news" was also a problem in other parts of the world and was a way to drive up ISIS recruitment. We need to explain that problem and possible solutions at a high school reading level without assuming that the reader knows a lot about it. The purpose of Conservapedia is to write articles like that, not to re-argue the latest headlines. There is so many bad examples in the current article that the meaning of "fake news" is lost in a blur. Perhaps another editor can suggest a positive path forward. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 16:24, 7 April 2017 (EDT)
::::Sticking to the subject ''does'' mean entering the realm of politics. Once again, we have two different definitions of fake news. "My" definition does not exclude "yours"; it is broader than "yours". I think almost everyone thinks of "my" definition, and in order for this article to be relevant and useful and speak out against the leftist elite, we need to follow "my" definition. You can create subsections for your types of fake news (seriously, that would be helpful -- in the "examples" section, make subheaders of ISIS-related fake news and other types). But we must not pretend that news stories reported in the media that are false or misleading are not fake news. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:30, 7 April 2017 (EDT)
::::Sticking to the subject ''does'' mean entering the realm of politics. Once again, we have two different definitions of fake news. "My" definition does not exclude "yours"; it is broader than "yours". I think almost everyone thinks of "my" definition, and in order for this article to be relevant and useful and speak out against the leftist elite, we need to follow "my" definition. You can create subsections for your types of fake news (seriously, that would be helpful -- in the "examples" section, make subheaders of ISIS-related fake news and other types). But we must not pretend that news stories reported in the media that are false or misleading are not fake news. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:30, 7 April 2017 (EDT)
==Instructive==
This article, couple with the phenomenea of "leaking," is instructive to anyone who has paid attention over the past two years (heck, over the past several years). We can learn how an administration, or permanent bureaucrats, thru selective leaking, shape the narrative and manipulate public opinion.
Numerous examples abound in recent years of selective leaks to generate false narratives, influence attitudes and perceptions, and gain public aquiescence or consent for objectives, that if all the facts were known, people would never consent to. Hillary's email server for example - if all the facts were dumped in public in 2013-2014 - she never would have been nominated in 2016. Hillary, the DOJ and FBI knew in 2013 that all the facts would been known at some point, so through selective leaking they get watered down. Same was true in the Benghazi investigation, or the "moderste rebel" narrative, etc.
So let's call it what is, a lack of transparency and incomplete information. Few news items are complete in themselved.
"Leaking" actually serves a vital purpose, yet can also be damaging. We really need a good article on [[Leak]]s, present both sides throughout its history. How it serves a vital purpose in informing the public and Congress on what the Executive Branch is doing, while also risky to national security or unnecessarily damaging to public perceptions simply out of partisanship.
Leaking is a game played in Washington that public doesn't really understand. While a journalists job is to secure leaks and a flow of information to meet publishing deadlines, his source risks their job and prison time to do it, in theory. But here we see powerful people, agency and department heads (even presidents) quoted anonymously in effort to control the narrative and shape public opinion.
On the surface it looks like an unholy or unhealthy relationship between public officials who leak and journalists, but in reality they need each other and see dependent on each other.
No article on fake news should ignore a discussion on leaks, else it risks bring labled fake news itself. That's why we need a separate stand alone article on leaks, cause the two compliment each other a give a much fuller understanding how to identify fake news. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 15:14, 6 August 2018 (EDT)