9 thoughts on “The best UC Berkeley hosts panel on fake news Reviews Coupon Promotional Codes 2018 2019

  1. The panel opens by defining the topic of "Fake News" and making a distinction between what they are and are not talking about by making a distinction of "Intent" which is a very important distinction to be sure. But the two contrasting examples that were used, were used in a way that evades a much more important point: the impact of media driven hysteria. NPR's Laura Sydell compares Judith Miller's sensational reporting on WMD's "It wasn't fake news; she made a horrible, horrible mistake" with Jestin Coler's fabricated publications "people in the fake news business, they know what they're doing, they know that it's fake." Certainly Coler's case is obviously more intentionally fake but in using these two examples the panel is also making the point that there was no deceiving intent in Judith Miller's reporting on WMD's (at lest not by Judith herself). By opening in this way the panel is defining what is and what is not fake news and they are decisively claiming that establishment media is not fake news, but rather sincere attempts at journalism with mistakes.

    Saving intent for later, it would have been much more valuable to open with 'the impact of media driven hysteria'. This affect is of course what gives significance to the discussion on fake news and why people should be paying attention. Whether the news comes from an established source or from guerrilla journalism or whether the individual reporting is guilty of first hand intent or not, is of secondary importance to the effect that is had on the audience. The primary concern with fake news is the fabrication of a perception that does not reflect truth. Berkeley should know this.

    The distinctions between established and guerrilla journalism as well as first or second hand intent are very significant, make no mistake. However the panel opening as they did portrays the image of established journalism as the good guys and guerrilla journalism as the bad guys. History has shown many prominent examples of established journalism reporting on fake news to a much more powerful effect then guerrilla journalism ever could, and in the most notable cases has led to war. The Gulf of Tonkin incident that was held as the justification for the Vietnam war never actually happened but was throughly reported on to the effect of mass hysteria which paved the way for a domestically accepted overseas conflict. The connections between between Iraq and 9/11 were as nonexistent as the WMD's that were claimed to be Saddam Hussein's possession yet the sensational reporting again paved the way for a domestically accepted overseas conflict. These are the sorts of "Fake News" situations that actually matter and are worth examining more closely for evidence of deliberate, premeditated intent, not by the journalists per say, but by the government acting through established media to achieve a desired effect; it at least begs the question: where did the story come from?

    Hypothetically assuming that what I described in the previous sentence is indeed what took place, the effect could only be achieved if the sincerity of established media was not challenged but instead described as "It wasn't fake news; [they] made a horrible, horrible mistake." I found it disappointing that a UC Berkeley panel on Fake News would overlook prominent historical examples of the devastating effects of fake news from established media and instead open their discussion by decisively forgiving establishment media for their horrible mistakes and declare such examples as "Not Fake News" and without intent.

    I was further disappointed as Laura Sydell continued by pointing out that spreading confusion is a political tactic "certain far-right groups in Europe and Russia who actually do use this tactic; it is a political tactic" but she fails to give the point it's well deserved weight as a tactic used by virtually every country including this one: propaganda. Regardless of her intent, the effect of her two points diverted the conversation away from establishment media in the US, which I feel is an important point of discussion in a conversation on Fake News.

    The panel conversation shifted to consider the "quality" of reporting and seemed to regard "quality" as an objective measure definable by different datums. However I should point out that to the individual's perspective, the quality of news is notably a subjective measure of whether the news best fits their perspective; i.e. the individual consuming the news will feel that the news is quality if it compliments their point of view, and not quality if it does not. It is not until the 38:00 minute mark that this particular question of perception is brought to attention "you have a public that wants to believe certain things." This begins to get at the heart of the problem as I see it, that there is a lack of analysis on the part of the individual driven in part by news, fake or not, posturing to have done that analysis for the individual. When this is all brought back to the notion of "trustworthy news" it really shows how the general audience is willing to let their critical thinking be done for them by "trustworthy news." I strongly feel that the problem is with the audience's lack of critical thinking more then with news at all.

    The panel discusses several potential "gate keepers" and "fact checkers" that are engaging in the same "let us do the critical thinking for you" kind of process. Consistency is no guarantee of accuracy; my own analysis of the 2014 Ukrainian crisis showed that although there was overwhelming consistency of reporting by western allied countries on the events, it did not reflect the facts on the ground that were made visible by non-journalist individuals recording their experiences via cellphone and social media. Had I not worked on that project with a colleague who could translate Ukrainian and source live information as the events happened, I would likely be exposed exclusively to the perspective that western allied media portrayed through "trustworthy" sources. Having access to information as close to the source as possible without that information first being repackaged into an interpretation allowed us to conduct our own analysis to better understand what actually happened. We were able to find incentive behind western media reporting as they did in the discrepancies between their reports and the overwhelming evidence that conflicted.

    Around 45:30 the point is raised that different ideological perspectives in journalism have their place, and while I defend including conflicting viewpoints I condemn "ideological" specifically because "ideological" is non-critical by definition. But another question is not between different ideological perspectives, but the relationship between fact and fiction and an individual's perception that constructs their reality. News is not News, rather it is a carefully engineered portrayal of worldview that panders to an equally engineered bias. This becomes obvious the instant you acknowledge that even viciously conflicting sides of establishment media are under the same umbrella. Intent aside, I will point out that this panel drew no attention to that extremely relevant fact.

  2. "Fake news" is a term for lefties that hate free speech. Like you folks.
    It comes from PC infected brainwashed lunatics, like you.
    Its goal is to censor free speech. And to push your perverse and destructive cultural marxist ideas.
    You have those ideas because you're morally depraved. And scared. You should be, because your plans failed. Decades of lies, oppression and violence against humanity still wasn't enough to create the world you envision.

    This proves something. But i am not going to tell you exactly what. Because you are spiritual nitwits. In other words, you're dumb and i want you to stay that way.

  3. Making money by accepting advertising is intrinsically corrupting to any information transfer process. That is what has ruined most TV news in the US.

    As soon as increasing advertising revenue becomes the goal of a content provider, pleasant lies become more popular than truth.

    If we want to stop people profiting from false content, we just have to eliminate all advertising from the type of media they are using to transfer their false content.

Add Comment