Whether a story is 'fake' or not, is no different as if a story is 'true' or not- it depends on the viewer and what is already fake or true in his mind.

The clue is, as is often the case, in the name. Fake, news. News that is fake and untrue.

Fake news from Donald Trump for me or you may be dangerous, or just stupid, but far more dangerous is fake news from sources we respect.

I would not believe it if Donald Trump said the economy will collapse into depression in 2021 unless he is re-elected. But if Warren or Sanders said the same thing -- and it was equally false -- I would probably take the claim seriously. So when Republicans make statements about the rightness of American policy, I tend to dismiss it. It is more of a problem when Democrats say the same thing. And, as luck would have it, both Democrats and Republicans regularly praise the American Way. Their praise is almost certainly fake news, but in the one case I am primed to dismiss it and in the other case, accept it. Because of the source.

The political propoganda and campaigning is one thing, but at this day and age when some media swears by alien sighting, flat earth, various ridiculous and unfounded conspiracy theories, vaccination infertility, denial of fascist terrorism, blatant contradiction of well established scientific theories, denial of history, and so on, the it becomes slightly concerning.

@Bitter Crank

more dangerous is fake news from sources we respect. — Bitter Crank

I'm not sure who 'we' are? I didn't respect the news before Trump and I think they've gotten further down a hole they are digging. The crime is not only in their blatant fake new stories they run, but in the questions they are not asking.
Why, in the debate tonight' did the media not ask, 'why student tuition is so high now?' or 'why we have not heard of from ISIS in 2 years', or 'why two people need to work in today's economy with the same standard of living from 40 years ago' .
I'll tell you why, because it was these same democrats that caused the college tuition to go up, caused the housing crash, failed as ISIS, N Korea appeasement, failed in Syria and yes, Russia. They are also part of the cause of the two income families. The crime is the Democrats won't admit their mistakes which cause them to repeat their mistakes. And the media is complacent to their crimes.

You blaming the Democrats exclusively shows your ignorance and narrow mindedness.

Of course I don't blame strictly the democrats, though most expanded government programs that caused most of what I mentioned are democrat ideas. But, as Trump does, I use some hyperbole in my rhetoric. I find it funny when I see democrats (not you necessary) in general, get bent out of shape over Trump's obvious hyperbole and the democrats frame it as lying. Give me a break. That' s just his style of speech.

A dangerous, deprecating, childish and low quality style of speech, especially for someone who ought to be respectable, educated and civil in manner, as the current president of the most powerful nation in history.

We are at the end of an era that started the moment the TV cameras aired the first Kennedy debate. From there, style began its emergence against substance.
Since that time, the politicians have evolved into talking heads with no human connection.
Trump has busted that bubble we’ve been in. Yes, he’s unorthodox, but that’s what people like about him! Plus, he can connect with people. Not one democrat tonight connects with people. If there was one it might be Booker, but he might have even killed that with his bragging , ‘ i live in the hood’ , all night. Bunch of phonies if you ask me.

Dunno.. He sounds incredibly stupid and careless to me.

But, as Trump does, I use some hyperbole in my rhetoric. I find it funny when I see democrats (not you necessary) in general, get bent out of shape over Trump's obvious hyperbole and the democrats frame it as lying. Give me a break. That' s just his style of speech. — halo

So, lying is okay if it's your "style of speech"?

I don’t know what specifically you’re referring to but he exaggerates a lot and often gets facts mixed up. The camera is not kind to Trump nor is he a polished politicians. He’s a wall street / ny real estate broker. That’s how they all talk.

People keep accusing Trump of not being a polished politician while he hates polished (and hypocritical, phony) politicians and real people are tired of the phoniness.

There is a distinction between "fake news" and false information. The intent of fake news is to deceive. Without that intent it is simple false information. Although it may not be the intent of someone who repeats fake news to deceive, the information was still manufactured with the intent to deceive. When Trump accuses news sources of being fake news he deliberately blurs the distinction. There is always the implication that the story is manufactured with the intent to deceive, to lie, but this implication hides behind the more benign accusation that the information is simply false.

There is a distinction between "fake news" and false information. The intent of fake news is to deceive. Without that intent it is simple false information. Although it may not be the intent of someone who repeats fake news to deceive, the information was still manufactured with the intent to deceive. When Trump accuses news sources of being fake news he deliberately blurs the distinction. There is always the implication that the story is manufactured with the intent to deceive, to lie, but this implication hides behind the more benign accusation that the information is simply false. — Fooloso4

I do not think that the phenomenon of “Fake news” could be explained by someone’s
intentional fabrication and/or manipulation.
Michael Sawer writes:
"Regimes of post-truth seem to depend upon establishing an archive
(that is accessible to and understandable by the public) of self-referential
data points that are not verifiable through other methods of establishing
objective facts... Social media becomes an apparatus that implodes the concept of “truth”
and allows the creation of regimes of discourse (political conversation as
just one instantiation of this phenomenon) that are potentially purposefully
at a distance from what is traditionally framed as “facts” in that they
were dependent upon being part of a produced and hierarchical media
ecosystem...
The era of post-truth is related to the evolution of
the media to “social” media…Donald Trump rode
the wave of this transitional space into the presidency.
“Trump Phenomenon” has been uniquely positioned
to take advantage of the seismic shift in the manner in which
individuals receive news and understand the presentation of this material
to represent something like facts."

I've been depressed to notice that many friends and people I respect, are now convinced that 'climate change is not established by the science', and that 'there's nothing Australia can do to combat climate change' - the kinds of fake news memes that merchants of doubt have been disseminating since Al Gore came out with Inconvenient Truth. — Wayfarer

So, how are you going to convince your friends to change their minds? What is the
non-partisan, common ground for dialog?

the role of Fox News in manipulating both the electorate, and Donald J. Trump, is one of the (many) current scandals of the administration and prime examples of "pushing an agenda". Fox News routinely peddles misinformation, parrots Trump's untruths, and feeds inflammatory content to the Watcher in Chief, with whom it enjoys a symbiotic relationship. There have been numerous articles in the so-called 'liberal media' about this fact. So they're really trying, and succeeding, to shape the agenda; as do many of the Chinese state media, and sections of the Russian media, and many other players, large and small, in this hyper-connected age. — Wayfarer

There is a deep abyss between CNN viewers and Fox ones. Both sides are sure that they possess the truth and blame the opponents' media for imposing agenda, fabrication, propaganda, and manipulation. And this state of affairs also contributes to the explosion of Fake news.

I do not think that the phenomenon of “Fake news” could be explained by someone’s intentional fabrication and/or manipulation. — Number2018

My point was not to explain the phenomenon but to identify the key element that distinguishes fake news from information that may simply be wrong or false. But that point is rapidly becoming moot as the term is being used in different ways that blur that distinction. As used by Trump it is an attempt to discredit any information, no matter its accuracy and veracity, that he does not want you to believe. It has escalated from a war of words to a war on words.

Declarations of "post-truth" may echo favored narratives and given the shifting terminological landscape one might say fake news.

I'll tell you why, because it was these same democrats that caused the college tuition to go up — halo

College tuition at public colleges and universities is largely a state issue, not a federal issue, since states decide how much their public colleges will cost. You are correct, though, that public college tuition has gone up a lot, and under both Democrat and Republican administrations across the country. The reason is that legislatures (controlled at various times by either party) have reduced the state share of college costs, thus driving up tuition. Where states used to underwrite colleges at 50%-70%, their support is now around 25%.

Tuition, corporate grants, corporate research contracts, and higher fees for student services have to cover the costs of running the colleges, whether it is Podunk State or one of the Big Ten colleges like U-Michigan.

Why allow state tuition to rise? In a word, change. For instance, There are reduced goals for how many 'middling BA degrees" are needed. Top notch graduates are in demand, and the reward for top notch graduates won't be discouraged by higher tuition. Middling BA degrees in technical fields are more expensive than English majors, and the rewards are higher--again, justifying higher tuition. Labor costs have risen at colleges. So on and so forth.

I am not advocating these policy changes, just observing them. I'm not in favour of the way students are forced to pay for their college education--privately financed loans. I'd prefer a publicly funded loan program with very low interest.

So, what is fake news, bad news, incorrect information, misinterpreted information, and irrelevant information has to all be sifted out.

I don’t know what specifically you’re referring to but he exaggerates a lot and often gets facts mixed up. The camera is not kind to Trump nor is he a polished politicians. He’s a wall street / ny real estate broker. That’s how they all talk. — halo

"Exaggerating" and "getting facts mixed up" are euphemisms for lying. There are plenty of very obvious lies to choose from. A simple google search will suffice.

People keep accusing Trump of not being a polished politician while he hates polished (and hypocritical, phony) politicians and real people are tired of the phoniness. — halo

I have literally never heard of anyone complaining that Trump is not enough like a polititian. Unstatesmanlike, frequently, but that's a different thing.

Not to veer too far off topic, but tuition began to rise when educational administration become a profession.Whereas once it was an extension of the job of educators with its professionalization it adopted an ill-suited business model with a product to sell and an increasing number of customers willing to pay aided by financial loans and promises of return on investment. In order to attract customers schools competed to build lavish facilities with the kind of amenities one might find at vacation resorts. As the salaries of top business managers increased the salaries of top school administrators kept pace. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education the compensation at both private and public colleges tops out at over $4,000,000. At private colleges there are over 50 executives who earn over $1,000,000. At public colleges the number is 12. https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/executive-compensation#id=table_public_2017

There has also been a large increase (bloat) in bureaucracy. Administrators are prone to increase the number of administrators and thus at the same time lighten their work load while giving the appearance of taking on more responsibilities since there are more and more people reporting to them.

In the past professor's pay has been a target on which to pin blame but the truth is that they earn less then other professions holding comparable degrees. In addition, more and more full-time tenured faculty are being replaced with adjuncts when members retire or demand increases.

Both Huxley and Orwell grounded their narrations on simple ideas of utopia and dystopia, and both are in perfect fit with regimes of the truth of grand narratives of modernity. Within our postmodern conditions, grand narratives have been wholly compromised and transformed.
— Number2018

That does not answer my question. In fact, it kind of suggests literary criticism would be pretty helpful, if you know anything at all about literary criticism. — NKBJ

Well, say that you are right, and I don't know. But what is your vision? How would you apply
literary criticism for analyzing Fake news?

The cause for the dramatic increase in tuition is the same as the housing bubble. Just follow the money. Who’s benefiting the most?? The banks.
When ‘everyone deserves an education’ program or ‘everyone deserves housing’ programs, primarily pushed by the left, are implemented , the government essentially backs high risk loans from banks, which the banks would not have loaned the money themselves. The result is an increase in the supply of money going after colleges or housing. Not to mention higher default rates. The result is higher prices.
You won’t hear this from the media because they are part of the same elite class as the banks, corporations and politicians.
That’s what I mean by fake news.

Literary criticism covers the analysis of rhetoric. That's most of what fake news is. Ergo, literary analysis would be helpful to the analysis of fake news.

I'd go so far as to say any close analysis of the wording of fake news is literary criticism, whether intentional or not.

The term "fake news" is overwhelmingly associated with the election of Donald J Trump, who popularised the term by smearing the media on every available opportunity and saying every criticism of him was 'fake news' — Wayfarer

I remember it the other way 'round. The left started the term fake news with that bogus PropOrNot article in the Washington Post, which had to be retracted after even fair-minded liberals saw how unsourced and fake it was. Trump appropriated the term for his own use. But we can retcon the phrase to famous historical incidents like the attack on the Lusitania (loaded with illegal munitions hence fair game for the Germans), the Reichstag fire, the Gulf of Tonkin attack that never happened, the WMDs, etc. Fake news is as old as the Trojan horse. Just ask Goebbels. Or for that matter Edward Bernays, the great theorist of propaganda as a tool for governments to lead the people. "His best-known campaigns include a 1929 effort to promote female smoking by branding cigarettes as feminist "Torches of Freedom" and his work for the United Fruit Company connected with the CIA-orchestrated overthrow of the democratically elected Guatemalan government in 1954 ..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

So it seems to me that your leading with a criticism of the New York Times is an attempt to divert the thread away from the topic of the relationship of 'conservative' politics and media, by trying to prove that what is generally called 'the liberal media' beat Fox and the other "conservative" media outlets to it. Would that be right, or am I misreading you? — Wayfarer

Deeply misreading me. My point is that fake news is used these days to label what I would call alternative news, any questioning of the mainstream narrative. I used the WMD example to make the point that although the NYT often gets the story right, when they get it wrong the consequences are awful. I can watch a hundred flat earth videos on Youtube and they do no damage. They're harmless. When the esteemed NYT publishes the fabrications of Judith Miller and we're still in Iraq 17 years later, that supports my point that by the metric of REACH and INFLUENCE, the NYT is the greatest purveyor of fake news in the world.

But virtually everything I post here is misread. When I attack the left, I am coming from the left. The people who keep me sane are Glenn Greenwald and Jimmy Dore; liberals who detest what's become of the liberals lately.

After all, why would I be upset about Hillary Clinton (and Joe Biden, who's been in the news lately ...) for their votes on the Iraq war if I were myself a neocon maniac lusting for war? It was Hillary's vote that gave cover to the rest of the Democrats to vote for the war; and that was for me one of the final straws in my break with what's become of liberalism these days. The reign of Obama did the rest, when he institutionalized the wars and the torture. That's why I really blew up a couple of weeks ago when someone said that "Trump puts kids in cages." Obama's record on Mexican immigration was atrocious. He deported record numbers of Mexicans, far far more than Trump has (in equal amounts of time). He put kids in cages. He turned kids over to traffickers, which has better optics than separating alleged families long enough to determine if they really are a family.

So when I'm angry about these things I look like a Trump supporter. I'm not. I'm a liberal in total despair at what's become of liberals. Did you see that debate last night? "Trump put kids in cages," "Trump KIDNAPPED kids." Good God. Trump is a LIGHTWEIGHT compared to what Obama did. I'm not in favor of Trump's awful immigration policy. I'm simply in despair at the childishness and willful ignorance of what passes for leftist critique of immigration policy.

Deeply misreading me. — fishfry

I googled those names you mentioned. 'Russia-gate' comes up a lot. That says something. No, actually - says a lot.

Well, fair enough! That's why I asked. — Wayfarer

Thanks, I added a couple of more paragraphs. I'm a liberal in despair at what's become of liberalism. Those two debates this week have got me in an awful mood. I'm for Tulsi, who's for peace. You see she was the only one to get a hostile question. Why is that? The left has abandoned peace and craves war with Russia. Don't get me started.

Don't worry mate, you'll never hear from me again.

Don't worry mate, you'll never hear from me again. — Wayfarer

LOL. I'm happy to hear from people who take the time to understand what I'm saying. Someone responded to my point about Judith Miller by claiming that I "don't know how Google works" because I noted that a search of "Judith Miller lies" returns over 17 million hits. My God. Anyone who thinks Judith Miller was sincerely mistaken rather than a deliberate war propagandist is either a fool or a neocon maniac, two species of human in great supply these days. I need all the understanding I can get around here.

I Googled "Judith Miller lies. Iinterestingly, when I Googled "Judith Miller," Google autocompleted "lies" as the first suggestion.
— fishfry

Apparently you do not know how google works via algorithms based on what is on your computer. — Fooloso4

You're right, it's possible that I may have googled that phrase at some time in the past. Still, the larger point remains. Anyone who thinks Judith Miller made an honest mistake, as opposed to being a deliberate lying propagandist for the war, is either a fool or a neocon maniac. That's my sincere belief. You disagree ok. Your examples didn't convince me. Chris Matthews? Another suckup to power. You may recall he liked Bush's "swagger." Salon? Give me a break. When did the liberals become such a bloodthirsty bunch of warmongers?

A million people marched in the streets against that war, but Hillary and the New York Times joined up with Bush. And now, 17 years later, we're still there. You really want to defend the NYT's role in this awful thing?

What the NYT published was fake news. That's why I brought it up. The single most consequential piece of fake news we've seen in 20 years, one whose consequences aren't done yet. But I didn't even mention the fact that the NYT chose to NOT report Bush's illegal domestic spying until AFTER the 2004 election. That revelation would have made Kerry president.

So you can have your moon hoax videos and your $200k worth of Russian troll farm Facebook ads. But they're nothing. By reach and influence and deadly consequences, the New York Times is the biggest purveyor of fake news on the planet.

I'm not mentioning that to make a right-wing attack on the NYT. I'm pointing this out because when we label the alt-left or the alt-right as fake news and whatever the NYT publishes as the Shining Truth, we deeply misunderstand what fake news is. Fake news is when the government and the "paper of record" lie the country into war. That's what fake news is.

But ok, Judith Miller is just misunderstood. If you say so. I'll take you at your word that you sincerely believe Judith Miller was not a deliberate neocon propagandist. The depth of my passionate disagreement with that viewpoint precludes me from engaging in rational discussion of the point. Chris Matthews. Perfect example of everything wrong with the left these days. I remember a long time ago when he used to be relatively sane. But he preferred Bush's swagger to peace. You'll forgive me if I don't cheer.