no, it's not. Some news is objectively false and has been repeatedly, and conclusively, disproven (e.g. Obama was born outside the US).
> Much like the word “terrorism,” the phrase “fake news” will be manipulated to accord with whatever pre-existing ideological commitments its newfound opponents already espouse.
possibly, but while it may be hard to say which stories are 'true', it is definitely possible to identify 'false'/fake ones. See Popper's concept of falsification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
I think the concern here is how easy it is to conflate "fake" with "things we disagree with", thus turning a need for journalist integrity into a partisan play. Given the willingness of major news outlets to quote polls without questioning methodology, I think the fear is justified that "fake" can become "anti-liberal".
Luckily, outside of clamping down on social media platforms and driving alt-right to use other venues, this whole campaign is stillborn.
2 comments
[ 7.0 ms ] story [ 19.9 ms ] threadno, it's not. Some news is objectively false and has been repeatedly, and conclusively, disproven (e.g. Obama was born outside the US).
> Much like the word “terrorism,” the phrase “fake news” will be manipulated to accord with whatever pre-existing ideological commitments its newfound opponents already espouse.
possibly, but while it may be hard to say which stories are 'true', it is definitely possible to identify 'false'/fake ones. See Popper's concept of falsification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Luckily, outside of clamping down on social media platforms and driving alt-right to use other venues, this whole campaign is stillborn.