Part I
A War On Your Intellect
LISTS OF FAKE NEWS SITES
-or-
ANYONE WITH AN OPINION OTHER THAN OURS IS WRONG
Most of you are experiencing a bit of this on your own. Thanksgiving Dinner and holiday get-togethers where the only instruction is to leave politics at the door. Which generally means leave YOUR politics at the door.
In the list of the most annoying memes, buzz phrases, headlines, narratives...whatever you want to call it, FAKE NEWS may reach number one soon. Why? Because it works and they won’t let up until they win or die trying. It doesn’t have to be true it just has to be repeated as a narrative and, most importantly, it works because it’s an attack on your intellect.
Hopefully we’re seeing the death rattle of the Mainstream Press. It seems they’re seeing the writing on the wall in the aftermath of their election night meltdown and are intensifying their attack on alternative and social media behind this meme of FAKE NEWS. Because, give them credit, they finally found something that works. And the more they say it the more they think it will stick. And maybe it will. Because there really is FAKE NEWS out there.
CONSPIRACY THREORIST didn’t work. People were intrigued by it. ALT. RIGHT didn’t work. People either didn’t pay attention to it or were actually driven to it by suggestion. But to say it’s FAKE NEWS directly attacks a persons intellect. Or conversely bolsters it. Opposing it elevates your assumed intellect (“Yeah...Thank god I don’t tune into any of these fake news sources. Well, other than the Onion. Let’s keep that one”). But when you’re in a position where you have to defend getting your news from a source that’s deemed “Fake”, your argument starts at a disadvantage because they got to the label before you did.
Let’s start with a couple of quick clicks. Fake News Watch has a page up (and there’s plenty more out there if you want to go looking) where they publish a list of sites they view as FAKE NEWS. Scroll down to the bottom of this page and you’ll find a short blurb about Fake News Watch and whom they compiled the list from.
There are Three things I noticed about them right away.
First, there wasn’t much about Fake News Watch in the “About Us” Description and certainly not enough for me to trust a single word they say.
Second, they offer 2 tips on how to spot FAKE NEWS:
- “Does the headline match the video of facts in the story? If they do not, it is a hoax site.”
- “Can the story be found on a major news outlet? This is not always sufficient”
Ignoring the typo (I like to beat up the English language too), the 1st point about headlines is absurd enough to eat itself and I’ll get to that next, and the 2nd point is, well, a big red flag for me. As I’ll get to later in Part II, major news outlets are a real part of the problem. Presuming the problem IS what they claim it to be.
Now, the third thing I noticed was a list of links they cite as sources for their list. It didn’t take too much clicking through these links to find that their “sources” trigger their own “tips” and by their own measuring stick, seem to constitute FAKE NEWS. It was pretty entertaining. The headlines did not always match the content. Video or not. And there were plenty of the headlines that could not be found on major news sites. But at least they covered their asses by stating “This is not always sufficient”
Historically, a major tenet of all media is to have a compelling headline. In radio and on TV it’s called a teaser. They’re used as bait and as triggers whether they’re conservative or outlandish.
Headlines can be confrontational or used to rile up a certain group or demographic into reading the content or staying tuned. How many times have you been drawn in by a teaser on the radio only to be disappointed by the story that you waited for? Listening to 5 minutes of commercials for crap you don’t want? Yeah, no agenda there.
Hyperbole is easy to spot so if this isn’t your thing then simply tune out. I’m drawn into a story by it’s headline all the time, but the only thing that sways my opinion is the content. Is it researched? Can I check their references? Do I agree or disagree with their spin and why? Honestly, if you contradict my opinion you’re more likely to get my attention.
SO IS THIS A WAR ON HEADLINES?
Nah. It’s just a war on your intellect.
Now let’s be honest here. If you’re getting your news by only reading headlines and not reading content (and as it’s safe to say that those folks are not reading this...let’s talk about them) then you’re an absolute idiot.
Conversely, Ron Paul released a sourced and cited article by Chris Rossini that contains a List of , in his opinion, FAKE NEWS sources that are in sharp contrast to the Fake News Watch list (a list often mirrored by the Mainstream Press).
Most of you know who Ron Paul is but the point I’m making by including his site is that there’s plenty of information about Ron Paul on not only his site, but all over the web and on the public record. I’m not familiar with Chris Rossini but at least I know who wrote this article. He backs up what he claims and there’s a discussion board at the bottom. All things absent from the first example from Fake News Watch. I have absolutely no idea who is behind Fake News Watch or who writes their content. Or a lot of these other list makers for that matter.
Both lists are worth exploring and if you look at one, please look at the other. (For the record, I’m a registered Libertarian. And also for the record, the first time I ever visited Ron Paul's website was when I was writing and researching this piece. Oh, and I did not vote for the Libertarian Presidential Candidate in this last election.)
So it begs the question, Who gets to decide what is fake news and what is not fake news? Are we moving towards having a “Ministry Of Truth” as in Orwell’s 1984? We already have Media Matters. Do we actually need a state run propaganda news outlet?
In Part II I’ll get into Media Bias and more “official” word on Fake News from the Mainstream Press.