Please, please....be careful with the term "fake news."

[Atman]

We really, really need to stop using the term "fake news" to describe simple disagreements of opinion, or push-back between sources. It is extremely dangerous and plays directly into the hands of would-be authoritarian regimes.

"Fake news" is literally that; made-up stories such as those which propagated Facebook via click-bait shops in Malaysia during the campaign (Hillary/Podesta running a child sex ring in a pizza shop, for instance, which resulted in gun play).

Donald Trump crying "fake news" because CNN criticizes him is not "fake news." It is a deliberate attempt to undermine the media so that the next time they report on his crimes he can just yell "fake news!" and most people will not know whom to believe.

I know whom to believe, though, because virtually everything about Donald Trump, from his hair to his reported net worth, is totally fake.

[boston bean]

1. Who is this "we" you mention??

[Atman]

6. This is an ammended version of a FB response I posted to a Republican "friend" this morning.

It was originally is response by a notorious Trumpsky supporter, to my criticism of the recent ICE raids. He attempted to defend Trumpsky by saying the raids were actually a plan initiated by Obama. So I said, "But Trump claimed it was a tremendous success. So are you now saying Obama's program was a tremendous success, or are you agreeing with Trump?" Another idiot responded that he thinks it all wreaks of more "fake news" to him.

[LisaM]

2. Yes, you're right.

There is also a huge difference between sites like HuffPo or Kos that have an admitted slant, but source their stories, generally with reputable sources. If I forward news stories, I send it from the source, not the site that collects and disseminates them.

[LisaM]

3. Was someone killed in Pizzagate?

I thought the guy showed up with a gun, but I don't recall an actual death resulting from the story.

[Atman]

5. Sorry, corrected.

"Fake post."

[JHan]

4. K&R ... and also typical ...

is accusing publications of "fake news" if they make the slightest journalistic errors.

[Dem2]

7. Agreed

I very rarely (and in proper context) use that or many other "popular" terms. If it's popular, it's probably stupid shit that I shouldn't be getting caught up in.

[loyalsister]

8. I try to use verifiable, credible,

because they are more precise and give people an opening to get confirmation from other sources.

[Atman]

9. This is KEY. Lots of web sites report the same information, but...

They report it with a slant. The fact is, very few have any "reporters," they're just reading press releases and wire reports and then adding their own spin to them. It doesn't mean the actual news is fake, it means the report is slanted and biased. One can see it readily by reading about the same incident reported on InfoWars vs. OccupyDemocrats. Neither is "fake" if they're reporting on an incident that actually happened, but either one is probably slanted towards one extreme. The key is to look for the original source. I never (or rarely -- never say never) post a like to HuffPo or OccupyDems, regardless of the story, because I know it has zero credibility with anyone but people who already read HuffPo or OD. There is no point in it. I disregard anything coming from InfoWars or NewsMax or Washington Times for the same reason. No reason to expect the other side should respect my source if it cannot be backed up by FACTS.

The trouble is that Trumpsky want's to re-define the original meaning of "fake news," which actually referred to FAKE NEWS. Now they use it to mean anything they disagree with. We shouldn't fall into that trap, either. It sucks us all down.

[JudyM]

10. Key is we need to get command of the term so that it's understood to refer to RW falsehoods.