The origin of "Fake News"

[a_majoor]

Interesting TedX talk about the origin of the term "Fake News" in this article. As always, the key observation is "follow the money", and you will be surprised(?) at who bankrolled it:

https://pjmedia.com/video/sharyl-attkisson-explains-tedx-talk-origins-2016-fake-news-narrative/

Sharyl Attkisson Explains the Origins of the 2016 'Fake News' Narrative in TedX Talk
BY DEBRA HEINE FEBRUARY 14, 2018 CHAT 1469 COMMENTS
In a Tedx Talk at the University of Nevada a couple of weeks ago (watch the video below) investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson revealed the origins of the "fake news" narrative that was aggressively pushed by the liberal media and Democrat politicians during the 2016 election, and how it was later flipped by President Donald Trump.

Attkisson pointed out that "fake news" in the form of tabloid journalism and false media narratives has always been around under different names.

But she noticed that in 2016, there seemed to be a concerted effort by the MSM to focus America's attention on the idea of "fake news" in conservative media. That looked like a propaganda effort to Attkisson, so she did a little digging and traced the new spin to a little non-profit called "First Draft," which, she said, "appears to be the about the first to use 'fake news' in its modern context."

"On September 13, 2016, First Draft announced a partnership to tackle malicious hoaxes and fake news reports," Attkisson explained. "The goal was supposedly to separate wheat from chaff, to prevent unproven conspiracy talk from figuring prominently in internet searches. To relegate today's version of the alien baby story to a special internet oblivion."

She noted that a month later, then-President Obama chimed in.

Google Issues Ultimatum to Conservative Website: Remove 'Hateful' Article or Lose Ad Revenue
"He insisted in a speech that he too thought somebody needed to step in and curate information of this wild, wild West media environment," she said, pointing out that "nobody in the public had been clamoring for any such thing."

Yet suddenly the subject of fake news was dominating headlines all over America as if the media had received "its marching orders," she recounted. "Fake news, they insisted, was an imminent threat to American democracy."

Attkisson, who has studied the manipulative moneyed interests behind the media industry, said that "few themes arise in our environment organically." She noted that she always found it helpful to "follow the money."

"What if the whole anti-fake news campaign was an effort on somebody's part to keep us from seeing or believing certain websites and stories by controversializing them or labeling them as fake news?" Attkisson posited.

Digging deeper, she discovered that Google was one of the big donors behind First Draft's "fake news" messaging. Google's parent company, Alphabet, was run by Eric Schmidt, who happened to be a huge Hillary Clinton supporter.

Schmidt "offered himself up as a campaign adviser and became a top multi-million donor to it. His company funded First Draft around the start of the election cycle," Attkisson said. "Not surprisingly, Hillary was soon to jump aboard the anti-fake news train and her surrogate David Brock of Media Matters privately told donors he was the one who convinced Facebook to join the effort."

Attkisson declared that "the whole thing smacked of the roll-out of a propaganda campaign." Attkisson added, "But something happened that nobody expected. The anti-fake news campaign backfired. Each time advocates cried fake news, Donald Trump called them 'fake news' until he'd co-opted the term so completely that even those who [were] originally promoting it started running from it -- including the Washington Post," which she noted later backed away from using the term.

Prager University Lawsuit Unmasks Google's Leftist Bias
Attkisson called Trump's accomplishment a "hostile takeover" of the term and cautioned people to always be aware of "powerful interests might be trying to manipulate" their opinions.

She described two warning signs to look out for.

When the media tries to shape or censor facts and opinions rather than report them.
When so many in the media are reporting the same stories, promulgating the same narratives, relying on the same sources -- even using the same phrases.
Attkisson pointed out that there's an infinite number of ways to report stories, so "when everybody's on the same page, it might the result of an organized campaign."

She warned the audience about the latest effort to quell speech through something called "media literacy," where liberal elites tell everyone else whom they should trust. She said, "Media literacy advocates are busy trying to get state laws passed to require that their version of media literacy be taught in public schools."

What's more, they're developing websites and partnering with universities. She warned that these people have their own agendas and want to tell you what to believe.

Google Bias Against Leading Conservative Websites Is Real
"When interests are working this hard to shape your opinion, their true goal might just be to add another layer between you and the truth," Attkisson concluded.


Correction: An earlier version of this post indicated that Eric Schmidt currently runs Alphabet. He, in fact, stepped down from his role as executive chairman of Alphabet in December 2017.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=581&v=UQcCIzjz9_s

 

[AbdullahD]

That is a horribly scary piece.

Do we come down on Google for being biased and consider a private corporation an essential service? Or do we allow them to quietly and effectively brain wash millions?

But it is very amusing those who originally funded the program are running from it, but are they really or just using another tactic?

Neat piece none the less

Abdullah

 

[Staff Weenie]

At the risk of falling prey to Godwin's Law, I would suggest that the current iteration of 'fake news' and it's aggressive attempt to disable mainstream media whenever it questions the Trump narrative, is more akin to the Lugenpresse tactic of the early Nazis. Any media chain which in any way questioned Hitler, or his politics and policies, was met with cries of lugenpresse (lying press). It's even older than 1930's Germany, but as breadth and speed of modern communications increases, it becomes a more necessary tool for any budding dictator in attempts to control the media.

 

[mariomike]

At the risk of falling prey to Godwin's Law, I would suggest that the current iteration of 'fake news' and it's aggressive attempt to disable mainstream media whenever it questions the Trump narrative, is more akin to the Lugenpresse tactic of the early Nazis. Any media chain which in any way questioned Hitler, or his politics and policies, was met with cries of lugenpresse (lying press).

"Supporters of GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump have begun to use an old German word—once invoked by Nazis and now currently in vogue with far-right political activists in Germany—to attack American media covering his campaign."
https://www.google.ca/search?q=lugenpresse+trump&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=B_uGWo2lMISR8Qf32IeIAQ&gws_rd=ssl

At the risk of falling prey to Godwin's Law,

Mike Godwin: "Sure, call Trump a Nazi. Just make sure you know what you're talking about."
https://www.google.ca/search?rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&dcr=0&ei=CPuGWtmuK-fjjwSLpYmADg&q=godwin+trump&oq=godwin+trump&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39k1j0i22i30k1.264343.268436.0.268949.12.12.0.0.0.0.184.1791.0j12.12.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.12.1759...0j0i131k1j0i131i67k1j0i67k1j0i10k1.0.o2eBIFF4Nfo

 

[Strike]

The author shows her own bias in this article, completely ignoring why the fight against "fake news" began in the first place.  It wasn't political.  It was grassroots with people massing together to fight Google and other search engines and force them to find a better way to ensure that rankings on searches weren't based solely on visits.

What was happening was that conspiracy pages (Truthers, anti-vaxxers, anti-whatever country or religion) were constantly popping up at the top of a search, giving them a false legitimacy.

What happened later when Trump started campaigning was just him jumping on a trend and using it for his own political benefit.  The whole term was certainly not birthed by one party or the other and to accuse either party of it gives them both credit that they don't deserve and also blames them for something that they just used to their advantage, some better than others.

 

[Staff Weenie]

Mariomike - I'm usually reluctant to compare Trump to Hitler. I've always felt that the Bavarian Corporal was ultimately far smarter than Trump (all claims to being a very stable genius aside). I believe Trump is much more akin to Il Duce, a bombastic and overly narcissistic buffoon.

His use of 'fake news' plays well to his fan base - built heavily upon disenfranchised and bitter lower middle class white Americans, who lack the ability to critically analyze the information before them. Calling something 'fake news' allows them to ease their cognitive dissonance and avoid accepting that they voted a lunatic into the Presidency.

 

[a_majoor]

That is a horribly scary piece.

Do we come down on Google for being biased and consider a private corporation an essential service? Or do we allow them to quietly and effectively brain wash millions?

There are arguments for either position. realistically, there are no truly suitable alt tech substitutes for Google, and Google has also used its market position to essentially buy any possible competitors, killing them at birth, so the treatment of Google as a "common carrier" may be the best short term solution.

But it is very amusing those who originally funded the program are running from it, but are they really or just using another tactic?

The presenter has spoken of the rise of "media literacy" programs as a new tactic. The main issue is most people are not taught to either truly apply critical thinking and analysis to problems, and are easily swayed by the "Appeal to authority" argument. The initial instantiation of "fake news" and the new one of "Media literacy" were and are designed to provide a seal of authority on the traditional gatekeepers, and new social media gatekeepers. People seeing items trending in newsfeeds generally are not aware of how they are manipulated by Facebook, Google etc. WRT social media sites. Instapundit is a sort of shorthand way to cross check, since it is one of the very few sites to provide coverage from a multitude of sources, from across the political spectrum and around the world. It is too bad there are not more services like that available (most news aggregators tend to pick from far more limited selections, so you end up in a form of echo chamber and don't see the same story covered in The Guardian or Jerusalem Post, for example).

Neat piece none the less

Abdullah

The best way to fight the battle is to know and understand the political "Narrative" is designed to obscure facts and interfere with your OODA loop. If you cannot successfully observe, then your orientation, decision making and actions will also be flawed, and you will cycle into an even worse position. President Trump's coopting of the term Fake News has caused millions of people to look for other sources of information. One side effect is CNN's viewership has collapsed by 30%, as people look for alternatives.

 

[Loachman]

I've always felt that the Bavarian Corporal was ultimately far smarter than Trump

The Bavarian Corporal ultimately lost.

President Trump has managed to beat the Republican establishment, the Democrat establishment, the mainstream media (essentially the Democrat Propaganda Department) and almost all polling agencies, and "the most qualified presidential candidate ever".

Many have underestimated him. That did not work out for them.

Today, the Democrats have no credible leader, none waiting off stage, no platform, and almost no money, are resisting initiatives that they once championed themselves just a few short years ago while wallowing in bitterness, still do not understand why they lost and what to do about it, their collusion/obstruction/russiarussiarussiarussiarussia narrative is crumbling, investigations are proceeding into various party, campaign, and Clinton aspects, and their propaganda wing has been largely discredited.

Anything can happen in the next almost-seven years. Nothing is guaranteed. Current circumstances and trends do not favour the democrats, however.

The mainstream media are biased, have been consistently wrong in their reporting and (especially) predicting, and many in the alternative media have been more accurate, more detailed in their reporting, and a wider array of views are easily found.

My search engine of choice is Startpage. It does not track one, as Google does, and I have neither detected, nor heard of, the bias for which Google (and its affiliates) is becoming noted. I do use Youtube and Google Maps, however, as I've yet to find alternatives.

 

[mariomike]

CNN's viewership has collapsed by 30%

A source would be appreciated.

QUOTE

"It's a crisis faced by other news networks as well, but Fox most of all: Its average viewer is extremely old. The median age of a primetime Fox News viewer is 68, according to Nielsen. That means half of the channel's viewers are older than 68. CNN's median primetime viewer, meanwhile, is 59."
https://qz.com/738346/fox-newss-biggest-problem-isnt-the-ailes-ouster-its-that-its-average-viewer-is-a-dinosaur/

"The average age of Fox News viewers is 68 and a majority of them are politically conservative and white.

Only 1.1 per cent of Fox viewers are black."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550377/The-average-age-Fox-Viewers-68-majority-politically-conservative-white.html

END QUOTE

If the average life expectancy for a white American male is 76, any predictions for the future of Fox News?
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/life-expectancy-white-male

 

[kkwd]

If the average life expectancy for a white American male is 76, any predictions for the future of Fox News?

Would it be a good thing if Fox died? Then you would be very limited in your news. If you think Fox can be judged by Hannity you are very wrong. He is a opinion guy, not a journalist. You should take a look at Special Report with Brett Baer, there is a good source of current affairs. If you want left side of view watch Shep Smith. Fox and Friends has been mentioned before as a news program. It is not, it is a traditional morning show with some weather entertainment and lifestyle.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

A source would be appreciated.

QUOTE

"It's a crisis faced by other news networks as well, but Fox most of all: Its average viewer is extremely old. The median age of a primetime Fox News viewer is 68, according to Nielsen. That means half of the channel's viewers are older than 68. CNN's median primetime viewer, meanwhile, is 59."
https://qz.com/738346/fox-newss-biggest-problem-isnt-the-ailes-ouster-its-that-its-average-viewer-is-a-dinosaur/

"The average age of Fox News viewers is 68 and a majority of them are politically conservative and white.

Only 1.1 per cent of Fox viewers are black."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550377/The-average-age-Fox-Viewers-68-majority-politically-conservative-white.html

END QUOTE

If the average life expectancy for a white American male is 76, any predictions for the future of Fox News?
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/life-expectancy-white-male

Not sure if this covers what you're looking for. It's publication date is today, for this source and article. Percentages aside, it looks like CNN and MSNBC are having a rough go of it. It's based on the Nielsen Ratings, so I imagine they know whats what. I didn't delve into it though.

https://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/CNN-Fox-Nielsen-ratings-TV/2014/02/26/id/554865/

"CNN and MSNBC did not place in the top 20 for either the prime-time spot or overall for the entire day, according to Nielsen. CNN placed at 39th during prime time and 34th for overall day, while MSNBC came in above CNN, at 26th place in prime time and 27th for overall day."

 

[Old Sweat]

It sure looks like those are Feb 2014 ratings.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It sure looks like those are Feb 2014 ratings.

Could be OS. Like I said, the article was in today's edition and
I'm really not interested enough to run stuff down.

 

[Old Sweat]

Here is the top of the ratings story, dated February 26, 2014, emphasis mine. The publication that contains it is dated February 17, 2018.


Home | Newsfront
Tags: Fox News | CNN | Fox | Nielsen ratings | TV
Nielsen Ratings: CNN Down, Fox News Up
By Sandy Fitzgerald    |  Wednesday, 26 Feb 2014 10:27 AM

 

Email Article| Comment| Contact| Print|    A  A




0

inShare
CNN's ratings continue to spiral downward, with the network's prime-time shows losing half their audience, compared to February 2013.


Read Full Article Here Nielsen Ratings: CNN Down, Fox News Up | Newsmax.com
Urgent: Do you approve of Pres. Trump’s job performance? Vote Here Now!

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Here is the top of the ratings story, dated February 26, 2014, emphasis mine. The publication that contains it is dated February 17, 2018.


Home | Newsfront
Tags: Fox News | CNN | Fox | Nielsen ratings | TV
Nielsen Ratings: CNN Down, Fox News Up
By Sandy Fitzgerald    |  Wednesday, 26 Feb 2014 10:27 AM

 

Email Article| Comment| Contact| Print|    A  A




0

inShare
CNN's ratings continue to spiral downward, with the network's prime-time shows losing half their audience, compared to February 2013.


Read Full Article Here Nielsen Ratings: CNN Down, Fox News Up | Newsmax.com
Urgent: Do you approve of Pres. Trump’s job performance? Vote Here Now!

:cheers:

 

[Old Sweat]

Frankly, I can't understand why they would publish an old article like this. It could be a legitimate glitch, or it could be sabotage or maybe just a brain fart.

 

[a_majoor]

CNN's viewership has collapsed by 30%

A source would be appreciated.

http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/basic-cable-ranker-week-of-feb-5/357307

Basic Cable Ranker: Week of Feb. 5
By A.J. Katz on Feb. 13, 2018 - 5:25 PMComment

Another week, another win for Fox News in prime time and in total day.

FNC ranked No. 1 across cable in total day (6 a.m. – 6 a.m.) for the fifth consecutive week, and dominated by a significant margin. That said, the network was -13 percent in total day viewers from the comparable week in 2017.

The network earned another No. 1 finish for the week of Feb. 5 in prime time viewers. But similar to its performance in total day, FNC was -13 percent in prime time versus the same week last year.

Despite the year-over-year audience declines, Fox News programming were among the most-watched across all of cable this past week. Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight and The Ingraham Angle made up 11 of the top 20 telecasts in total viewers.

FNC also finished No. 4 in the prime time demo (A25-54), ahead of MSNBC (No. 13) and CNN (No. 19).

MSNBC scored another top 5 finish, both in prime time (No. 2 overall), and in total day (No. 3 overall). Not only did MSNBC keep its spot in the top 5, but it posted double digit growth in prime time viewers (+22 percent) and in total day viewers (+26 percent).

MSNBC defeated rival CNN in the prime time demo, but fell short to CNN among A25-54 across total day (No. 15 vs. No. 12).

CNN, as mentioned knocked off its rival MSNBC among adults 25-54 in total day, but struggled relative to last year in prime time. The network was -30 percent in total prime time viewers, and -23 percent in total day viewers from last year.

ESPN, No. 3 in total prime viewers, posted +4 percent growth in the daypart from the same week last year. The network also took the top spot across basic cable last week among adults 25-54 in prime time. (604,000)

Then there’s NBCSN, which is thriving right now in the ratings department thanks to its coverage of the 2018 Pyeyongchang Winter Games. NBCSN ranked in the top 3 last week among adults 25-54, and in the top 10 in total viewers.

Basic Cable Top 10 – Prime time (Total Viewers)

Fox News (2,605,000)
MSNBC (1,747,000)
ESPN (1,385,000)
HGTV (1,364,000)
History (1,316,000)
USA (1,242,000)
Investigation Discovery (1,148,000)
NBC Sports Network (1,081,000)
TNT (1,041,000)
Discovery (997,000)

Basic Cable Top 10 – Total Day (Total Viewers)

Fox News (1,529,000)
Nickelodeon (982,000)
MSNBC (972,000)
HGTV (821,000)
Investigation Discovery (781,000)
NBC Sports Network (704,000)
USA (695,000)
History (676,000)
CNN (674,000)
ESPN (648,000)

 

[mariomike]

Perhaps the base is largely watching just Fox, while the various Lugenpresse ( Reply #2 ) Main Stream Media networks aka "Fake News" split the rest of the TV viewers amongst themselves?

Also this to consider, "It was an extraordinary month for MSNBC, the self-proclaimed “Place for Politics.” The network benefited from a unique political cycle, and finished No. 1 across cable news in weekday prime time among viewers from the ad-friendly A25-54 demographic, as well as in the younger A18-49 demo."
http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/msnbc-is-no-1-in-cable-news-among-the-weekday-prime-time-demo/336914

Advertisers love younger viewers. They’re much more likely to try new things, while older viewers tend to be set in their ways.

Presumably, if the average age of Fox viewers is 68, they are retired, and may have more time to spend in front of a TV. So, that could possibly influence ratings statistics.

 

[kutty]

What do people gain from misleading?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

What do people gain from misleading?

Power and influeance