The Problem
We’re in a whole new world, thanks primarily to our illustrious Occupant, Donald Trump and his gentle allies, the Russian ‘bot program. Fake news is not only an accepted concept, it’s making a profit for companies that write internet filtering schemata.
Unfortunately, it’s also become a weapon of choice in the competition for viewers between internet sites in the political arena, and is becoming a too-often used attack dog in various pie fights.
Part 1: Filtering and readership
Please read this article, if you haven’t already: Meta: Community content disclaimer explanation
Simply, it says that Daily Kos is trying to be seen as a political site that does not support Fake News, because otherwise we are likely to be automatically blocked on any number of public and private networks.
This possibility is making a number of people more than a little nervous. As far as I can tell, they’re trying to handle it with as little disruption to open conversation on the site as possible. And, as usual, the community is paying as little attention as possible to the problem, because we can. I think that needs to change; thus, this diary.
Part 2: Attacks from outside
We’re starting to see some direct attacks on that status from other websites. A recent diary linked to an article from Salon that, just in passing (and incorrectly, imnsho), accused Daily Kos of publishing Fake News. The less strictly political a site is, the less they need to worry about backlash against their own articles.
Part 3: Within the community
It’s serious.
You may not have noticed one of the more recent additions to the Rules of the Road;
DO NOT Post “Fake News”: An especially dangerous type of CT, “Fake News” presents a threat not only to the site’s reputation but to political discourse in general. If a claim seems especially exciting or surprising, take a moment to verify it before posting it, even if it fits a left-wing narrative. Fake news of any persuasion is prohibited on Daily Kos. Posting stories judged to be Fake News can not only lead to the removal of the story from the site, but also to banning of the poster’s account.
Republishing Fake News — My take: You can’t always tell, and you probably shouldn’t have to, but think seriously when an article gives you just the slant you’ve always wanted to have to make points against people or institutions you don’t like. The news item that finally, absolutely proves something you’ve been trying to say for years. The story that, once and for all, simplifies a series of events into something people can understand. If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.
For simplicity, figure there are two main kinds of Fake News. There is the kind that is put out by our real, live enemies, to push public opinion and create a climate that will forward their interests, and then there is the kind put out by friends and fellow-citizens, either to win at some game they are playing, or through sheer laziness in checking their data vs. their beliefs. It’s usually hard to judge the long term effectiveness of the first set, and almost impossible to prove intention in either case, so both need to be judged on a simpler basis: how many unsupported statements are being made, and are cited facts kept separate from opinions and interpretations.
Opinion: We are going to see a lot more relatively trivial writing created and flushed out under this heading than we ever will real propaganda. OTOH, it will be a hell of a lot easier to spot the serious stuff once we cut our teeth on the day-to-day shit.
A Warning for the community/moderation
An accusation of Fake News should be handled the same way an accusation of trolling, or shilling, or other bad faith posting should be. Open a Private discussion at the Help Desk, not in the comments of the diary. You can certainly supply corrections, alternate sources, alternate interpretations of data, etc., to the diarist in the comments, if you think corrections need to be made, and you can certainly question the data and/or the way it is presented without any reference to fake news. More than ever before, we need these conversations in order to present solid writing to our viewers.
A note to diarists and commenters
One simple distinction between a solid diary or comment and fake news is whether you’re presenting verifiable facts, your own opinions stated as such, or opinions presented as facts without backup. Make sure you take the time to make sure of the difference; it’s not always as simple as you might think.
That you are sure of what you’re saying is not enough.
Strong opinions are still, sometimes… wrong.
More than ever, you need to be able to strongly cite your facts, and call your opinions what they are — your opinions. The temptation to write as though they were facts can sometimes be overwhelming, since if people accept them as facts, they won’t argue with you. Supposedly. In the event, if you’re not sure you can back up what you’re saying with solid factual cites, call it opinion.
If you can manage to keep the facts, the opinions, and unproven random sound bites separate, and properly labeled, you should be able to dodge the bullet when it comes to Fake News.
I do expect to see a lot more diaries labelled as opinion over the next few months, if this takes effect.
A side case:
There are statements and circumstances for which multiple interpretations are possible. Some of those statements may be absolutely and incontrovertibly factual. Whether any, or a few, or all of the possible interpretations are correct, or even possible, is sometimes impossible to say. Once there are multiple interpretations of a set of data, they’re back to being opinions, rather than facts.
Keep it in mind if you’re tempted to call out one interpretation over another, or use one to “prove” a point you want to make.
Odd thoughts: (If you have items to add, note them in your comments, and I’ll add them as we go)
- No statement about the future can be categorically labelled factual. A statement about electability is a statement about the future, until the election is underway, at which time it ceases to be relevant against the actual incoming data.
- This does not include thermodynamically correct statements about the condition of a closed system; i.e., climate change modeling “predictions,” though they may be superseded as the models are refined, are the closest things to facts about the future you’re going to get.
- All belief sets are covered under the heading of opinion, including their nullity.
- This whole mess is going to feed directly into the running gag that Daily Kos is an echo chamber; a site that censors free speech; a site that kos is running for his own immediate profit; captive/sold out to the corporatist elitist neo-liberals; certainly not what it used to be X years ago; absolutely biased in favor of/against _____(name your favorite candidate or pet peeve). Because — ahem! — unless you can show hard data to back it up, that all falls under fake news if you claim it as anything other than opinion.
- Dubious sources should be called out immediately. (h/t Bob Johnson) It’s worth noting that saying why they’re dubious is a Useful Thing to do.
- Single-sourced “big” news should be noted as such, and be treated as unconfirmed. If a second source for a critical ”breaking” story doesn’t appear within 24 hours, one should assume that the story has a good chance of not being true. (h/t Bob Johnson)
- DK is a site that caters to partisan opinion and there are plenty of those shared that cross a fact-based line, such as the relatively common statement to the effect of “all cops are racist”. Such comments do not lend credibility to the site. (h/t Crabby Patty)
Later diaries in this series:
"Fake News" - Part II: Gone are the days... Negative Nostalgia and Site Reputation (This one went over like a brick, but there’s still some good stuff there.)
“Fake News” — Part II.0I: Gone are the days… Overturning an old Daily Kos tradition (Second try, less dancing around)
Weaponizing “Fake News” — Part III: Site Credibility / The Other Side of the Coin