Fake News is Old News

Fake News is Old News

“Fake news.” It’s our new favorite buzzword. A politician you like got criticized? Fake news! Outlets are printing statistical information that doesn’t uphold your narrative? Fake news! Anyone publishes anything you don’t like? What is… is fake news? There’s a lot of buzz around this concept lately, but it isn’t a new one. Not long ago words like “media bias” or “agenda-driven programming” would replace “fake news” in almost every one of those previously uttered sentences. And before that, words like Heresy Blasphemy Balderdash and Poppycock were equivalents. They’re just quick phrases constructed to de-legitimize another person’s perspective without examining it. Fake news. TV: “We may lose the Vietnam War” Fake news. Duke of Fakenewsington: “Yes, your Royal Highness, the colonies want to revolt!” Fake news. Fake news. Og-funded media So if people have been trying to discredit information they disagree with since the dawn of time, Why is the concept of “fake news” so much more pressing at the present moment? It’s been said that we now live in a “post truth” era, and that leads me to ask… When was the era of truth? Did I miss it? At what point did we devolve from a population of highly-tuned skeptics and into uncritical consumers of faulty information? “Oh my, did you fact-check your newsfeed today?” “Why yes, of course! I fact-check my news feed every day.” “As per usual, not a single error from Facefeed.” “Yes indeed, and jessicasorganicblog.wordpress.com is impeccable!” [Swoon] “Isn’t it always?” Such thinking is fantastical. People have always spread misinformation to promote their own views. Before the 1980s, there were basically only four TV networks where all of your news came from. And since they were all mostly on the same page, we got a lot of the same information. Even if these networks meant well, When they got something wrong, that meant everybody got it wrong. And this was a big problem. But then, with the advent and popularity of the internet, these networks no longer held a monopoly over the public’s access to information, and you could get information from anyone with any perspective. There are obvious downsides to this. Folks on the internet have fooled other people into doing all sorts of stupid things, like… microwaving their cell phones and forwardingthisemailtoeveryone on theircontactlistlesttheyreceive7yearsbadluckandnotbekissedbytheircrushthisfriday. Television media, on the other hand, convinced the public that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when there weren’t, that the WikiLeaks were unreliable, and that Full House was funny… I’ll let you decide which bit of misinformation was worse for society. When the internet allowed organizations like WikiLeaks to provide us with pertinent information that was being withheld from the public, most of the big players in media did nothing but try to discredit them. Even though they turned out to be right. It’s obvious that this kind of information would never have made it to the public made it to the public if we had exclusively trusted old media. So it’s good thing we didn’t! Is “fake news” new? No way! But the amount of access we have to it is. On the flip side we now have greater access to accurate information we may not have had before. So, how does one operate within this landscape? 1. When you hear an extraordinary claim, demand extraordinary evidence. 2. Check the sources on every article. 3. Keep your guard up and don’t be quick to outrage. 4. Be the most skeptical of that which you wish to be true. Most importantly, 5. Don’t just write off a story because it’s from a website you distrust. Fact check them and examine their arguments. Don’t just write them off by calling them fake news. And who knows, you might be surprised. A broken clock is right twice a day. “Fake news.”


100 thoughts on “Fake News is Old News”

  • WRONG, Fake news refers to the fact that the source of information being reported  is controlled and even falsified by all major networks in America, conspiring against the public for political gain. Only Trump has called them on their lies. The gun problem is complete fiction.

  • Darth Utah 66 says:

    It's true that we have alternative news but it's also true that some news outlets are clearly not reliable. For example, Infowars basically just promotes conspiracy theories such as Sandy Hook being a false flag. Another famous example is pizzagate which was the idea that a human trafficking ring was operating at a pizza joint in DC.

  • Rocco Anders says:

    I agree with this vid.

    Saying "You're Fake News."
    Is basically the unfriendly version of saying
    "I don't believe you."

    Nothing wrong with being skeptical, but at least you should be polite.

  • legitaddress says:

    You're all missing the point entirely. What fake news really means isn't just "facts I disagree with". It's the absence of facts/stories that go against the narrative that the particular corporate media entity is trying to push. And no it's not just fox news that has a biased narrative.

    Just look at what corporation funds the media outlet you're getting your news from and seek out news from other countries (UK doesn't count). Also keep in mind that no matter how progressive they may seem, ALL mainstream media only covers what the military industrial complex deems kosher. (Source: can you name one article or news segment against the Syria missile strikes?)

  • Robert Martin says:

    We're in a post-fact world because just a couple years ago, if a public figure or politician said something like basically everything thats come out of Trump's mouth over the last two or three years, they'd be fact checked by the media, shown to be full of shit, and people would see that and ignore the person. Now that happens and the people saying "hey, this guy is claiming he never said this, but here's video of him making the exact statement last month" are the ones that are ignored.

  • God-Keizer Theo Bovens says:

    lol… There were WMDs in Iraq. Is this some sort of neoliberal globalist YouTube channel? I've had it with unpatriotic libertarians…

  • Fake news isn't just calling the opposition fake. Take CNN for example. Everything they put out isn't fake. However they've decided on different issues, usually political, that integrity was less important than honesty because sensationalism sells.

    They ruined their own credit. People like me no longer trust them at face value. People like me trust independent reporters that have not violated that trust more.

    The scary thing is, being someone that follows several sources around the political spectrum, there are actually alt right publicly pro segregation reporters and organizations I trust more than main stream media for the same stories. I disagree with their standpoint and some conclusions, but they play a better game. That's how they gain favor by being trustworthy and warning common sense people into supporting equally discriminatory practices.

    Someone stirred this crap up. Intentionally or not, they helped their enemy by knowingly lying. Maybe they were the enemy to begin with..

  • Zionist Mangler says:

    #Foundation for Economic Education
    The same global Zionist overlords that own mainstream TV, print, radio, etc. also now own online sources like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, Google, AOL, Yahoo, Huffpost, etc. Even content creators like TYT are Fake News!

  • What's frustrating is that fake news was originally used to refer to pieces by outlets like breitbart and others that were blatantly false, and were essentially there to make money by pandering to extreme political bias on both sides of the spectrum. However, due to statements by the current president, fake news was then co-opted to refer to the opposite: Legitimate journalism that was being attacked in order to delegitimise it. "Fake news" has gone from a buzzword about improving media integrity to a way for political figures to sew distrust towards the media when they dislike what said outlets are saying.

  • Clayton Anderberg says:

    hercy is not somthing that is used to mis agree with some one but rather only used when some one acully didnt get the bibble right simliar story with blasphmy

  • Stephen Schmidt says:

    it would have been really cool if at the end, you said "as an exercise, somewhere in this video, I have lied to you. Try to find it!"

  • There WERE WMDs in Iraq.

    Whether or not they were a viable threat is up for debate, but whether or not they were THERE is not.

    We found TONS of unrefined yellowcake, and HUNDREDS of chemical weapons.

    This is not even controversial. This was reported openly at the time. They're a matter of public record.

    People would have you believe that yellowcake is not a WMD (it's not a nuke, no – but cover a conventional explosive in it and you've got a Dirty Bomb – and it's clear he was refining it.), and that the chemical weapons were "inert" because they weren't combined (newsflash – chemical weapons are virtually never stored in their final compound form – might as well say a bullet isn't a bullet until it's fired).

    …But yeah, everything else was pretty much on-point.

  • The left has decided that the narrative is vastly more important than the facts. Who do you think controls 4 of the 5 major US news networks? Leftists. Fox is the only exception among the 5 big ones. ABC, NBC, CNN, and CBS are pretty much the same leftist bullshit.

  • You Don't Get to Know says:

    The US might have lost the Vietnam conflict, of course, but in the event it did not. The US application of military force imposed the desired diplomatic outcome at the Paris talks; I don't know what your definition of military victory is, if not that. The US then did not so much lose the subsequent peace as deliberately throw it away.

  • Enter The Hunter says:

    also Wikileaks helps expose Hillary Clinton's email scandal / taking and destroying of government property through use of a private server.

  • #1 Marmaduke Fan says:

    "Fake news" was originally put forward as a term to describe right of center media outlets, like Fox, InfoWars, the Daily Wire, or FEE for that matter. The term was adopted to mock the very people spreading the term "Fake News" by pointing out they were not in a position to lecture anyone about objectivity in journalism. It gets overused, but what made it funny in the first place is how it turned around the new term on unprofessional media outlets who wanted to pressure Facebook and others to suppress right of center news and opinion..

  • Stop shoving your opinion into the news. That’s not how news is supposed to work. Just present information so I can get back to my regularly scheduled programming without feeling like I know nothing about the real world.

  • A few things I would like to add:

    1. I see the modern use of Fake News to be news networks such as FOX or CNN whom report on actual news but claim to be unbias and "straight facts" while inserting their own personal bias into everything.

    I heard on NPR one reason we are so divided is because we can't agree on the facts. A large part of that is because we have news networks claiming to report straight facts (while omitting information that would help you create your own opinion) and being unbias while doing the opposite.

    "A half truth is worse than a full lie." The meaning behind that is when they tell only half the truth and you try to fact check them you'll find part which is true and believe they told you the full truth. This makes it very difficult when you try to fact check someones claims.

    An example I can give is how news said they're was 355 mass shootings in a year. If you fact checked it you would see it as true despite the fact they left out the information that mass shootings where more than 4 people died are very rare. Typically there is only around 20 mass shootings a year that isn't drug/gang related or qasn't an accident. A bee bee gun incident was even counted in the 355 number. But if you fact checked it you will believe the 355 number is true because it fact checked that way.

    2. We didn't lose the Vietnam [Conflict]. We got tired of being there and wrote up a peace treaty which said we would remove all our troops. Once we did they broke the treaty and public opinion wasn't strong enough for us to reenter. Historian's would count it as a lost but it wasn't truly a defeat that we know it as.

  • Iustinian Constantinescu says:

    Welcome to the most productive comment section on the interwebs!!!
    Note: Wikipedia for basic facts, Snopes for articles like '7 whatever's that will blow your mind', the UN website for stats, and Politifact for politics.
    Note: Please like and reply so that it rises to the top.

  • TickedOff Priest says:

    Fake News is a direct result of political bias and ignorance. So many networks are so entrenched in a narrative that they refuse to admit that they were ever wrong.

  • that one guy 500 says:

    0:53 i mean we didn't lose vietnam persay, we left while we were winning because the people hated the war in the first place.

  • Incorrect. Fox News didn’t come onto the market until 1996. And cable news shows are the most misleading bias based media due to cable not being fully regulated by the FCC. Recently congress started talking about regulating social media since that’s where folks get news information from but likely won’t happen since Zuckerberg loves donating money to the democrats since he agrees with their ideology, but won’t want them regulating him even though he himself is bias towards the left.

    How to spot fake news? Just check statistics and see if they line up with what the media outlet is saying. Like America has a gun problem when fact is gun homicides are at a record low. And assault weapons bans won’t stop mass shootings since we already had one from 94-04 and still had mass shootings.

  • The problem with fake news (CNN,MSNBC, etc) is that they market on-air personalities, and NEED to be the first to break a story, even if it's complete BS. Most of the mainstream networks are owned by leftists who weaponize their platforms against conservatives. They don't care if what they publish turns out to be false, they'll just quietly issue a correction later or mea culpa. They won't actually wait for the facts to come out and if they have an opportunity to blame: Russia, Trump, Trump supporters, the NRA, "gun nuts", "online trolls", "bigots/-ists/-phobes", conservatives….they will and won't bat an eye. Then it takes over the news cycle, gives their insanely biased on-air personalities something to have panel discussions, bull sessions and breaking stories to cover and gives the evening "comedians" something to make more "orang man bad" jokes to their audience of braying morons.
    One thing that would help is if the networks stopped marketing their show hosts at least on headline news programs and just gave the job to any normal person as a newsreader like they used to. No Anderson Coopers, Don Lemons and Wolf Blitzers. Literally a guy or girl they hired for a normal person salary to read more or less from a teleprompter. No million dollar contracts to news "anchors" who sensationalize every story and inflate their own ego

  • The world would be a more functional place if everyone internalize those five basic rules.

    Critical assessment of information (as well as one's own arguments for and against it) is not only getting increasingly important in the 'psot truth' era. It is one of the most useful life skills in general.

  • You have somewhat a false dichotomy here. I do wish the internet was that benign but some truly awful things have been proposed and passed through new media.. I still think the internet is a great resource..just not so benign

  • Sorry, but you're wrong about the "no WMDs in Iraq" canard. They absolutely had a WMD program and WMD materials. The pre-war screwup was not about the presence of WMDs, but about the readiness and effectiveness of their WMD program. It looks like you just turned yourself into fake news ?

  • I just wanna make a statement in regards to the WMDs in Iraq. We didn't find the WMDs that we went to find. But that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War and again after the Gulf War against Iraqi Kurds. The Halabja Massacre at the end of the Iran-Iraq War, for example, killed between 3,000 and 5,000 people and injured thousands more using mustard gas. There is also a claim that chemical weapons were used in Southern Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War but the UN didn't find any definitive evidence. So while we didn't find any WMDs in 2003, we do know that Iraq did possess the capability to manufacture and employ chemical weapons and we know that they employed them on several occasions so the belief that there were WMDs in 2003 isn't really fake news.

  • Comrade Everclear says:

    Seamus, Chemical Weapons are classified as WMDs, and those we know for a fact were in Iraq as we saw them use them several times over. We also saw other types of WMDs in use in the area too. We found these weapons being transported to Syria too, even ovomit one of the biggest opposers to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars admitted they found them.

  • I think if you are omitting information that would help somebody to side, and maybe not the way you’ve decided, if you aren’t trying to let people come to their own perspective of an attached that’s fake news.

  • Didn’t Saddam Hussein kill like 10,000 people with gas? That’s a weapon of mass instruction. I don’t think it’s a fact that there were weapons of mass destruction we just didn’t find any that was FBI until I know you’re a libertarian and don’t like wars but it sounds like you were trying to say something wasn’t true because you don’t like it. I’ve heard arguments for both but unless we know the FBI and the present lied about weapons of mass instruction we don’t know they weren’t there. I’m not saying you could just move the whole factory the manufactures nuclear warheads obviously but that’s not the only evidence that there would be weapons of mass distraction and that missing is an evidence there were no weapons. I really do want to hear more about why we know there were weapons of mass structure so somebody comment and let me know plz

  • Fake news is popular because there is finally a president that’s pointing it out we’ve all known how biased and downright liars a lot of mainstream media is and I think Donald Trump thinks anything is fake news if it’s against him lol

  • Though I understand and agree with the given argument, I find a high opportunity cost and I find that this tends to be true with many people. What ways are there to lower this cost?

  • Post truth happend when we moved away from critical thinking skills being the ideal. When we allowed truth to be set aside in scholarship for feels. When we moved away from "the hard to achieved" being a praise worthy thing to accepting "all levels of achievement". Every achievement is thereby perfect and equal. The list goes for pages lol.

  • While I dislike the wars… The Afghanistan and Iraq Wars were conducted under the Casus Belli of Treaty Violations. The reason why Iran and a few other nations haven't been declared upon is that no direct Casus Belli has been given yet. Mostly because those nations haven't signed the Treaties that would cause a Treaty Violation CB. Hence why we have had so many allied nations involved in the fighting.

    The interactions between Nations are treaty based which means they are, at the core, contract based. War tends to be the primary way these contracts are guaranteed because international courts really can't settle all disputes or violations of treaties without substantial military backing.

  • If you finished watching this video, and decided to comment that "_______" is fake news so you don't listen to them, then you have learned nothing from this video.

  • 2:30
    Didn't we give Iraq enough time to hide/destroy any WMD's they could have had?
    We said, "Give us your WMD's in X amnt of time, or we'll take them."
    They thought, "X amnt of time is just enough time to hide our WMD's!"
    And by the time we got there, we couldn't find the WMD's.

  • WOW! You people are clueless. Hard to miss that the average leftist IQ is moving lower every day. I didn't know how many people were out there who couldn't use their own brain.

  • It's not so much fake news but blatantly politicized propaganda and the omittance of parts of the news to push an agenda that is the problem.

  • On the topic of WMDs in Iraq operation avarice actually uncovered roughly 5000 of them.
    Post War Discoveries and Incidents, 2005 Operation Avarice talks about that process then the The New York Times Investigative Report sub section summarized the results,
    "In October 2014, the New York Times reported that the total number of munitions discovered since 2003 had climbed to 4,990"
    referencing the following,
    and https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

    Some were even converted into IEDs one of those being a serin gas artillery shell that thankfully they botched the conversion to mine so the chemicals didn't mix properly and the soldiers were only horrendously harmed and not killed outright…

    So there really were WMDs in Iraq.

  • 1:05 looking back from 2019 … because of "liberal" media pushing narratives … and even double down after their claims been disproven ..
    i.e. trump derangement syndrome and russian collusion

  • You can take my jobs, trash my president, and throw me in jail, but when you insult full house, I get angry.

  • Actually the BIG 3 in the US started losing their hold in the '80's with cable TV and CNN… somewhat. They then REALLY lost their grip once the internet rolled in.

  • Theseekerofinfinite says:

    I will start by saying I am rather right leaning, however, I have a serious criticism for this video. One of the biggest fallacies widely used, including by the right is the idea that all ideas are equally worth listening to and engaging. Discussion, not debate or a philosophical search for truth, is promoted as the greatest social good and everything must be about listening to each other and compromise. This however is ridiculous in practice. Let's just take a very simple obvious truth: the sky is blue during the day. Would it make any sense to give serious credence or consider the idea of someone who proposes that the sky is actually yellow? Of course not, the furthest engagement that makes any reasonable sense is ascertaining if they are just somehow mistaken and thus you can explain how they go wrong, or to find that their mind is made up regardless of fact and so it is not worth talking to them about it at all. In either case, their claim is literally still fake news because it is, even if patently and obviously here, false. Terms like fake news, and especially ones like heresy are not made because someone just wishes to ignore an opinion, they are made to describe things which are in fact counter to truth and fact. One who is called heretical is not called such because of the clash of opinions, but because they deny divinely revealed truth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *