This is not funny because, as the pizzagate and other fake stories reveal, there are many people who are heavily armed, impulsive, ignorant, angry, and do not have any sense.
It seems to me that the “fake news” problem is far less significant than the angry, impulsive, senseless, armed problem. If we could fix that, the fake news would take care of itself.
hyphenmansays
Mano,
The problem is real and, I think, Lincolnian/Hannumian in nature.
That is, yes, you can fool some of the people (the infamous 27 percent) all of the time and there is a sucker born every minute.
The Internet has made the problem larger than either man could ever have conceived when 27 percent of just the adult population of the United States (some 243 million) creates a pool of fools of more than 65 million people
The problem is one of ignorance, sometimes willful, but ignorance none the less.
I do know that censorship is not the answer, but I would suggest that vigorous, and occasionally confrontational, speech in response to the ignorance is the best path.
Do all you can to make today a better day.
Jeff Hess
Have Coffee Will Write
Bruce Hsays
One problem, Marcus, is that you can’t fix stupid. Apparently we can’t take away their guns either, which is another problem. But if we can avoid feeding their delusions, maybe we can mitigate some of the harm.
alkaloidsays
the fake news controversy is being used to push a right wing/’centrist’ agenda that will use the issue of ostensibly being Russian propaganda to punish leftist and even vaguely liberal sites like Truthdig, while the same media that lied in favor of the Clinton campaign (much less a lot of the actual right wing) remains unscathed.
Look at who PropOrNot actually picks on. It’s an enemies list more than anything else. Don’t buy into it.
Reginald Selkirksays
Does it occur to you that the man being interviewed may be lying?
1) Perhaps he is not a Hillary supporter. Who knows? did the interviewer do anything at all to verify?
2) Perhaps he did not create fake stories just to test the system.
a) If that were the case, one story would do, as a “Sokal” type hoax. This guy pumped out the stories on a regular basis.
b) He made money doing it.
c) His stories were uniformly anti-Domocrat.
I think perhaps the interviewer has been had. and the interviewee is having a good chuckle to himself about how gullible the ‘lamestream media’ is.
That’s *your* truth. /s
It seems to me that the “fake news” problem is far less significant than the angry, impulsive, senseless, armed problem. If we could fix that, the fake news would take care of itself.
Mano,
The problem is real and, I think, Lincolnian/Hannumian in nature.
That is, yes, you can fool some of the people (the infamous 27 percent) all of the time and there is a sucker born every minute.
The Internet has made the problem larger than either man could ever have conceived when 27 percent of just the adult population of the United States (some 243 million) creates a pool of fools of more than 65 million people
The problem is one of ignorance, sometimes willful, but ignorance none the less.
I do know that censorship is not the answer, but I would suggest that vigorous, and occasionally confrontational, speech in response to the ignorance is the best path.
Do all you can to make today a better day.
Jeff Hess
Have Coffee Will Write
One problem, Marcus, is that you can’t fix stupid. Apparently we can’t take away their guns either, which is another problem. But if we can avoid feeding their delusions, maybe we can mitigate some of the harm.
the fake news controversy is being used to push a right wing/’centrist’ agenda that will use the issue of ostensibly being Russian propaganda to punish leftist and even vaguely liberal sites like Truthdig, while the same media that lied in favor of the Clinton campaign (much less a lot of the actual right wing) remains unscathed.
Look at who PropOrNot actually picks on. It’s an enemies list more than anything else. Don’t buy into it.
Does it occur to you that the man being interviewed may be lying?
1) Perhaps he is not a Hillary supporter. Who knows? did the interviewer do anything at all to verify?
2) Perhaps he did not create fake stories just to test the system.
a) If that were the case, one story would do, as a “Sokal” type hoax. This guy pumped out the stories on a regular basis.
b) He made money doing it.
c) His stories were uniformly anti-Domocrat.
I think perhaps the interviewer has been had. and the interviewee is having a good chuckle to himself about how gullible the ‘lamestream media’ is.