Showing posts with label Fake news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fake news. Show all posts

Tuesday, 8 October 2019

Ian Hislop; the ballerina


Did we dutifully watch Ian Hislop’s piece about Fake Noos? I did but unfortunately kept dozing off -  partly due to the previous night’s insomnia. 


I hope you’ve got access to The Times’s (£)  review by Carol Midgley because this is going to be a review of a review. Ms Midgley usually comes out with fairly perceptive analyses of programmes I’ve watched. 

While her take on “Motherland’ is spot on, in my humble opinion the Hislop review lacks a certain something. 

Yes, the example of the false-flag fake story planted merely to hook a rival’s plagiarism was entertaining and informative, as was the tale about the child sex-ring fake noos linked to Hillary Clinton and the near-fatal consequences of the hatred engendered by it - but did Hislop allude to the fall-out from the equally apposite ‘credible and true’ business? If so, I missed it due to one of my unconscious phases. 

Then Ms Midgley says:
“Hislop was variously playful, concerned, droll and exasperated in an intelligent film that treated viewers as if we have a brain, which makes a nice change. Donald Trump’s version of “fake news”, Hislop said, is “real news that he doesn’t like”. By denouncing real news as fake, he added, Trump and his supporters allow real fake news to flourish. “

Here we go. Trump. 

Hislop did indeed mention the alarming tendency we all have to believe what we want to believe regardless of ‘facts’, and I’m reliably informed that while I only was half-awake he cited ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ as an example of debunked, disproved and demonstrably fake news that still refuses to be put to sleep by those that ‘like’ it.  But he also cited that great authority on impartiality, Mark Thompson. It’s a wonder he didn’t bring in John Sweeney while he was at it.

The Times is veering further and further away from us. (me.) (eg., Caitlin Moran? She has a way with words, granted, but will she ever grow up? 

Does Carol Midgley treat readers as if we have a brain? Let’s assume she watches HIGNFY. Is the BBC  still regarded as impartial? Does The Times still pass for a right-of-centre paper? Does Carol Midgley really think Ian Hislop is a balanced and thorough adjudicator of purveyors of the truth?  A credible and true authority on Fake Noos? 
There are too many elephants silently squatting within Hislop’s world view. Maybe I should just have resigned myself to my slumbers.

Saturday, 7 September 2019

Master of all he surveys


So:



Comments most certainly could be going better under that tweet, as hordes descend to mention black pots and kettles and to accuse the BBC of being one of the biggest purveyors of fake news out there. 


A new industry collaboration to tackle dangerous misinformation was announced by the BBC and partners today. 
Major news and tech organisations will work together to protect their audiences and users from disinformation, particularly around moments of jeopardy, including elections. 
Earlier this summer the BBC convened a Trusted News Summit, bringing together senior figures from major global technology firms and publishing. Recent events such as the Indian elections have highlighted the dangers of disinformation and the risks it poses to democracy, and have underlined the importance of working together around shared principles. 
The BBC’s partners who attended the summit are The European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Facebook, Financial Times, First Draft, Google, The Hindu, and The Wall Street Journal. Other partners are AFP, CBC/Radio Canada, Microsoft, Reuters, and The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, and we are also consulting Twitter on areas of potential collaboration. 
Tony Hall, Director-General of the BBC and EBU President, says: “Disinformation and so-called fake news is a threat to us all. At its worst, it can present a serious threat to democracy and even to people’s lives. 
“This summit has shown a determination to take collective action to fight this problem and we have agreed some crucial steps towards this.” 
The summit agreed to work collectively, where appropriate, to agree collaborative actions on various initiatives. The group will publish details of its commitments on these areas at a later date, following consultation. Initiatives include:  
  • Early Warning System: creating a system so organisations can alert each other rapidly when they discover disinformation which threatens human life or disrupts democracy during elections. The emphasis will be on moving quickly and collectively to undermine disinformation before it can take hold   
  • Media Education: a joint online media education campaign to support and promote media education messages 
  • Voter Information: co-operation on civic information around elections, so there is a common way to explain how and where to vote 
  • Shared learning: particularly around high-profile elections
Everyone involved is committed to ensuring the collaboration is a success. That means it must work in practice as well as in theory. To ensure the approach works and is fast and responsive, we will be conducting “fire drill” tests before we roll out the agreed actions.

Incidentally, until reading this I never knew that Lord Hall also now acts as President of the European Broadcasting Union. It's a two-year job he took up in January this year. 

He's a busy man, isn't he? Not just running the BBC, but the EBU too!

Monday, 26 November 2018

"Propaganda in the guise of news"


Another week begins, and what better way to start it that with a bit of Charles Moore. This is from his latest Telegraph column:
The BBC is currently running, in its own news programmes, an occasional series about “fake news”. Its definition of fake news has a political stance of its own. The one I came across, by chance, one lunchtime was an extremely obscure piece about how, in the Philippines, propagandists were trying to gloss over the evils of the Right-wing Marcos regime in the 1980s. The programme-makers would not have dreamt of reporting the same about, say, Castro’s Cuba. 
The BBC itself constantly puts out propaganda in the guise of news. Take its huge increase in reporting of women’s cricket. Women’s cricket is a good thing. But would it, on its sporting merits, make the grade in the tight schedule of a general news programme? 
Being no cricket follower myself, I have checked with those who are. They recognise improvement in women’s cricket, and welcome the good people who are popularising the sport, but say the standard of play is, as one buff puts it, either “goodish public-school” or “minor county”. 
Yet the BBC bulletins often speak of “England’s cricketers” and mention only later that the item is about women players, as if the sexes were interchangeable. They are not, any more than our much-loved local point-to-point is in the same league as the Grand National. Fake news!

Monday, 12 November 2018

An op-ed from the BBC's Dave Lee


Here's a video report from the BBC's US-based technology correspondent Dave Lee to mark the launch of the BBC's Beyond Fake News season:


You'll note that the expert 'talking heads' in the piece are Margaret Sullivan of The Washington Post and Claire Wardle of First Draft. (Have a guess who part-funds First Draft!). The Washington Post and First Draft played major roles in launching the phrase 'fake news' during the 2016 presidential election, so it's perhaps no wonder that they're now so peeved about Donald Trump turning it back on them. 

Here's a transcript of the report:

Donald Trump: I've just received a call from Secretary Clinton... 
Dave Lee: When Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016 there was a brief moment when the phrase 'fake news' meant exactly that. News that wasn't true. But then, before he'd even be inaugurated, this happened:
Donald Trump: I am not going to give you a question. You are fake news...fake, phony, fake...It's all fake news...It's called 'fake news...Fake, fake, disgusting news.
Seemingly overnight, President Trump took the phrase 'fake news' and co-opted it to mean news he simply didn't like or news that he didn't want his supporters to hear. It proved to be incredibly effective.
Margaret Sullivan, Washington Post: It's a question of propaganda. You repeat things and you repeat things and you say them different ways and you say them over time and eventually it starts to sink in, an it's the way propaganda works, and I think that's what we're seeing here.
After seeing how discrediting the media got Donald Trump into the White House other politicians around the world saw an opportunity of their own.
Claire Wardle, First Draft: We were just following the Brazil election...Bolsonaro...it was a common refrain. We see Duterte in the Philippines. We see politicians in the UK and Australia. All sorts of politicians, as a short hand, say "don't believe that, trust me". 
Studies suggest that among Trump supporters trust in the media is at rock bottom. And, towards the end of 2018, the attacks on the press took on an even more aggressive turn: 
Donald Trump: Fake news is in fact, and I hate to say this, in fact, the enemy of the people. 
Margaret Sullivan, Washington Post: Those words, 'enemy of the people', have really taken it to a new level. and... 
Dave Lee (to Margaret Sullivan): (interrupting) To a dangerous level? 
Margaret Sullivan: To a dangerous level, yes, because I think it turns people against journalism as one of the pillars of our democracy. 
Two years since being elected negative stories that might sink any other politician have simply bounced off President Trump. Yet as November's midterm elections drew near some wondered if crying 'fake news' would still have the desired effect. But with the votes in and Trump declaring a success it was very soon business as usual: 
Donald Trump: When you report fake news, which CNN does a lot, you are the enemy of the people. Go ahead! That's enough... 
As President Trump roars into the second half of his first term there's no sign he plans to change his winning, and highly divisive, strategy. 
Donald Trump: You are a rude, terrible person. You shouldn't be working for CNN.

Saturday, 10 November 2018

Beyond Fake News



Brandishing their simple swords of truth, the trusty BBC is donning armour and riding forth against fake news. 


And it's a global crusade too (not that they'd put it like that, of course). The season is aimed at Europe, the Americas, Africa, India and Asia Pacific.

The countries specifically mentioned so far are India, Kenya, Somalia, Russia and the Philippines.

Jamie Angus, supreme leader of the BBC's World Service Group, says the BBC must “move beyond just talking about the global ‘fake news’ threat, and take concrete steps to address it”. 

And his first step will be to abolish BBC News. 

Only joking. 

He goes on:
“Poor standards of global media literacy, and the ease with which malicious content can spread unchecked on digital platforms mean there’s never been a greater need for trustworthy news providers to take proactive steps. 
“We have put our money where our mouth is and invested in real action on the ground in India and in Africa. 
“From funding in-depth research into sharing behaviours online, to rolling out media literacy workshops globally, and by pledging to bring BBC Reality Check to some of the world’s most important upcoming elections, this year we’re carving our path as a leading global voice for spotting the problems, and setting out ambitious solutions.”
Tally-ho!

Thursday, 18 January 2018

Flake news

Retiring Republican Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona speaks out about the many and varied flaws in Donald Trump’s personality. He makes some excellent, but rather obvious points. Maybe Trump’s core supporters are being wilfully blind when they defend the most blatant examples of Trump’s narcissistic weirdness, but Flake hasn’t mentioned the benefits that have accrued from Trump’s recklessness. Maybe it takes a madman to shake things up in a way that a politically correct, measured, apparently rational personality could never do. 


Stupid boy!

The Today Programme featured Trump’s Fake News Awards.
Anyway, it amused me so much to listen to Jon Sopel (another beauty) demonstrating a staggeringly un-self-aware analysis of the fake news phenomenon, and for your enjoyment I give you this transcript:

Think of the Oscars, think of the Grammies, it wan’t anything like that! Donald tTump put up a Tweet, linked it to the Republican Party website and you couldn’t find anything out - you got an error message initially, so social media went into meltdown and this was instructive in itself of the whole fake news debate. 
Because the trump detractors said ‘look what a shambles, what chaos and the Trump supporters were saying the site has crashed because there was such huge interest in it.
I’ve spent the last hour, two hours watching the TV - Fox News which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, very right-wing and supportive of Donald Trump has been covering the fake news wars extensively, CNN, MSNBC barely mentioned them and NY Times next to nothing and the Washington Post are reporting it as a total flop. 
The specific incidences are journalists who have got things wrong, and let’s put our hands up, who hasn’t at times made a mistake. The number one on the list of things that Donald Trump found most egregious was from Paul Krugman, known well prizewinning economist who predicted that there would be a stock-market crash when Donald Trump became president. Now, that’s a prediction. Is that fake news? I mean, you know, again, if you are asked to look into a crystal ball there is a 50/50 chance you’re gonna get things right or you’re gonna get things wrong. But this to Donald Trump was the most egregious example because the US Stock-market has gone up 30% in the past year, and Donald Trump, over the past year, a phrase you hear again and again is fake news fake news, you’re all a bunch of liars, it’s untrue. Is that having an effect? Yes it is. if you look at polls a lot of people don’t trust journalists. 
Republicans take the harshest view, they say 68% have a less favourable view of the media compared to 54% of Democrats. 4/10 Republicans say that reports painting politicians in a negative light should always be deemed as fake news. That’s alarming.
I think, in America there is always the post Watergate, post Nixon effect, where every journalist looks at himself/herself in the mirror and thinks I could be Woodward or Bernstein and bring down the president. I think that has changed slightly in the Trump era. To some journalists no longer seeing themselves as holding power to account, speaking truth to power, they see themselves as the opposition. I watched, to my astonishment, a rally that Donald Trump gave, and at the end of it the TV presenter, in the studio, it cuts back to him and goes “Man! That was unhinged! What an embarrassment to have him as our president!” This is mainstream media. Now, could you imagine, Sarah, you coming onto the Today Programme and saying ‘Theresa May, she’s unhinged! What an embarrassment to have her as our Prime Minister” By all means invite guests on who might make that point, but when the news organisation itself is saying that I think it is starting to see itself, not just as holding power to account but as the enemy and I think that plays into Donald Trump’s hands as well. 
So is this all down to editorial decisions then? (said Sarah Montague) 
No. There is commercial element to this too. There is money. Because actually in this present climate, CNN’s audiences, for example, and it was a CNN presenter who talked about the president being unhinged, their audiences are up! Their advertising revenue is up! They are trying to ‘marketise’ the unpopularity of Donald Trump among certain quarters. The NY Times! Their digital subscriptions are going through the roof! Because they are getting more and more people wanting to subscribe to the NY Times. Does that mean they are widening their readership in terms of are they reaching pockets of Republican supporting kind of mid-west America? No, they’re not. What it is, is that more and more liberals think this is the constitution under threat, we think we must subscribe. And so you have people living ever-more in an echo chamber, where the news that they read in the newspaper or they listen to on the radio or they watch on the television are just their own views coming back to them. And fewer and fewer Americans are hearing anything other than what they already believe.

Sunday, 31 December 2017

How fake news plagued 2017


Georgina Rannard

Ah yes, fake news!


Never mind about Lord Adonis's famous career as an elected MP (fake news!),  Georgina from the BBC has a 'thorough' review of this year's fake news for you on the BBC News website.

Or at least the kind of fake news that the BBC considers 'fake news'.

Read it and you'll come away with the impression that fake news appears to come exclusively 'from the Right' and from social media ("right-wing blogs" get a mention).

What about 'respected' media outlets who messed up badly this year (the major US networks especially, who've had to fire staff for fake news reports about the Trump administration)?

And what about those "left-wing blogs" like The Canary, Skwawkbox and Evolve Politics who have been accused (often fairly) of pushing fake news? Why not mention them too?

InfoWars is, of course, at Number One in Georgina's run-down, followed by 'the Muslim girl on Westminster Bridge'.

Naturally Georgina doesn't mention, say, the unravelling of the BBC's own fake news over the alleged Brexit-related anti-Polish hate crime in Harlow that turned out to be no such thing, and which was even worse than 'the Muslim girl on Westminster Bridge' in that it wasn't just some Russian bot insinuating something that wasn't true but the 'respected' BBC itself insinuating something that wasn't true. 

(The BBC's reporting over this is considered biased, though the BBC disputes this.)

It's an easy game, this cherry-picking, isn't it? 

Take the beam out of your own eye please, Georgina.

Monday, 6 November 2017

The BBC falls for fake news again


This may be small fry perhaps, but please bear with me. I think it shows just how fishy the media, including the BBC, can be.

(And even if you loathe Trump and all his works, I still think you'll find this interesting, so please read on).

On the second day of his Asian tour President Donald J. Trump (for it is he) took part in a fish-feeding ceremony at Toyko's Akasaka palace with Japan's PM Shinzo Abe. One widely-distributed piece of footage of the event [the one the BBC was using this morning] shows the two leaders doling out spoonfuls of food to the koi below and then, after the camera zooms in and Mr Abe's hands go out of view, Mr Trump is shown upending his wooden container and dumping the rest of the food into the pool below.

Other widely-distributed pieces of footage were crudely edited versions which made it seem even more like Mr Trump was behaving like a dolt:


A social media outcry against Mr Trump ensued: 'Impatient!', 'Behaving like a four-year old!' and 'How rude to his Japanese hosts!' were among the politer things written about the insensitive oaf. 

Naturally sections of the mainstream media were just as uproarious, and the Independent's headline will give you a flavour of such reporting:


Now, all was not as it seemed. Other footage showed the bit that the zooming-in mentioned above concealed, and revealed that Mr Abe had in fact upended his wooden container first and that Mr Trump was only following suit:


The Guardian gives a very good account of all of this, and (to their credit) notes the major role that mainstream media reporters played in spreading this little titbit of 'fake news':
White House reporters, keen perhaps to pick up on a Trump gaffe, captured the moment when he upended his box on their smartphones and tweeted evidence of his questionable grasp of fish keeping.

However, other footage made clear that Trump was merely following his host’s lead.
But what of the BBC? Did they do themselves proud by steering clear of this piece of 'fake news'?

Of course not.

Anthony Zurcher, who never misses a chance to carp at Donald Trump, certainly wasn't coy about it, positively leaping at the chance to (shark) snark at the US president:


And - far more importantly - the BBC News Channel made complete fools of themselves this morning. 

Using as a backdrop the footage from Toyko TV that didn't show Mr Abe upending the food first, this exchange between a BBC presenter and a BBC reporter took place. 

It shows BBC 'fake news' in full swing. Why didn't they check? 

Enjoy!:

Annita McVeigh: And Steve, just on another subject entirely, it was meant to be a good photo opportunity, but even that drew controversy. It seems to follow Donald Trump around. It was about feeding some koi carp earlier and his fish feeding technique was called into question, wasn't it?  
Steve McDonnell: Yes, when these leadership summits happen people watch everything that they do. When Donald Trump first arrived and had his first meal here and it was a hamburger people were like, "What do you mean? You flew all the way to Toyko and you're having a hamburger!". And yes, that's right. They went to feed some fish, some koi carp, and I guess you're just supposed to feed them little by little, but at some point Donald Trump, he tips the whole lot of fish food in one go into the water. And he's being criticised I guess for being uncouth in his behaviour. But when it all comes down to, I guess if you are going to compare that to North Korea's nuclear weapons or the importance of global trade, I think in the next couple of days we'll probably be forgetting about the great carp incident.  
Annita McVeigh: A lack of strategic patience there. Steve, thanks very much. 
Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

Monday, 5 June 2017

Fake News again

There is a certain amount of crossover between ITBB and Biased-BBC, and as you can see we were urged to cover the CNN Fake News story that Biased-BBC is featuring here. Pleased to oblige.

Notorious bad-girl Katie Hopkins has raised the matter with the BBC, as allegedly the BBC aired a clip from the staged footage during one of their news bulletins. (I missed it and it’s unavailable on iPlayer.) Katie is keen to know who provided the props.

The BBC is always jumping the gun - not checking the veracity of an item - when it suits the narrative (not so much when they’re oh so carefully (Martine Croxall) avoiding any premature and potentially libellous naming of the religion of peace in connection with an unfolding terrorist atrocity) but manipulated sound-bite type stuff is more at home on ‘BBC Trending’.

Anyway, footage of a London-based CNN anchor named Becky Anderson staging (or inventing) a feel-good news item has gawn viral. Or is she merely doing what TV journos do?
The film in question shows director Becky and her crew assembling a few hijab wearing women in front of the cameras, with ready-made placards and flowers. Does this prove that much of the news we get is stage-managed? Is the whole thing one gigantic, agenda-driven  fake?



You’ve all heard the story (maybe you haven’t) of a conversation between strangers sitting next to each other on a flight. A war had broken out in the vicinity of their departure. The two passengers sipped wine and chatted about where they had been and why. “I’m a producer from TV news” said the man, “covering the war.” “Then why,” said the other man, “are you flying away from the action, rather than towards it?”  “It’s fine” said the man. “I’ve got my crew there. They know what footage I want. I’m going home.”

Is that relevant?

The first question that occurred to me when I read about this peculiar CNN incident was: who on earth filmed this pantomime and why? (You can’t help wondering, can you?) It seems it was “Mark”.



We all know that the camera never lies. It’s not the camera’s fault if the cameraman makes one or two adjustments to suit.  Faking /  tweaking / air-brushing; we’re all up to it - faking stuff - these days. You know the type of thing. The camera pans out to reveal that the “crowd” wasn’t a crowd after all. The edit changes the narrative. Pallywood as an art form; the art of hoodwink.

But the funniest thing of all is that in the end, if "Twitchy.com" is correct - and I haven’t verified it - the final bit of film is a massive let-down. It’s just a pointless rant by a somewhat unprepossessing, rather charmless woman, which is unlikely to have any influence on anyone whatsoever. If the BBC was hoodwinked by Becky Anderson's stage-managed ensemble, more fool them.

Do tell me if I've got it all wrong. Seriously.

Wednesday, 22 March 2017

Long View or Wrong View?


I listened with increasing incredulity to Jonathan Freedland's “The Long View of Targeted Fake News” Radio 4. He set out to compare the infamous blood-libel that stemmed from the murder of 8 year-old William of Norwich, with the “Fake News” of today. 

I assume the general idea was to demonstrate the ease with which unfounded rumours can take hold, with ensuing dire and far-reaching consequences. Only - and this is as predictable as anything could possibly be - he chose not to make his comparison between the Jews of then and the Jews of today.  He chose instead  to make his comparison between the wholly unfounded libel against the Jews, which occurred in 1144 and the “New Jews” of the present day; namely the Muslims.  
 At one point he conceded that, while the rumours against the Jews were “bogus’ and “wholly invented”,  there “have been” some attacks involving Muslims, and “there’s a difference”. 

“Yes” said Miqdaad Versi, the man from the MCB, deftly brushing terrorism to one side, “but there have been a number which are entirely fictitious,” and he cited a few inconsequential examples, such as the falsely reported Muslim ban on the new five-pound note. Good grief. 
Jonathan Freedland's Long view isn’t long. In fact it’s pretty short. He failed to see that could have saved himself the trouble of contriving an unconvincing comparison for the very simple reason that the same old blood libel against Jews is still very much alive and kicking. It’s still the same old fake news, the same old antisemitic memes and themes; same as it ever was. He should have compared fake targeted news then with fake targeted news now.  But he didn’t. Instead he chose to make capital out of the flawed claim that ‘Muslims are the new Jews.
He should have taken a genuinely Long View, comparing the much maligned Jews of 1144 with the much maligned Jews of now.

Half the story about hatred of the Jews has been deliberately excised, quashed, suppressed, hidden away from “The News”.  What is “targeted and fake” about that? Just that the omission has crucially skewed the news to the point where it’s simply fake.    

Trust Jonathan Freedland to invite someone from the Muslim Council of Britain to cement his false comparison. 
Still with Jonathan Freedland,  I had intended to say something more about David Goodhart, whose new book “The Road to Somewhere" I wrote about the other day
Goodhart seemed to me to be a person from the left who is now perceived by persons from the further left as a bit of a traitor. They accuse him of turning right, evidencing his populist views on immigration, or rather his understanding, nay, sympathetic portrayal of ‘the right’s’ views on immigration. He’s a veritable Gillian Duffy, they assert.

I happened to see Mr. Goodhart on Sunday’s The Big Questions and I still had the feeling, that for all his rationalisations of the poor misunderstood ‘Leave’ voters for whom he’s created the benign-sounding term “Somewheres’,  he is at heart a true lefty trying his best to appear even-handed. 

However, I did wonder, yet again, if I’d got him wrong. Now that Jonathan Freedland has reviewed his book for the Guardian, I’m beginning to think I just might have been right all along.

The first part of the review consists of a straightforward description of the book’s contents. 
(Here am I opining on a book I haven’t even read, the irony of which hasn’t escaped me.)
 However, it’s not so much the book itself that concerns me here, but Freedland’s tiresome conflation of Jewish and Muslim communities. 
Here’s the bit that interested me, which I’ll quote in full:

“Where Goodhart goes wrong above all is on Britain’s ethnic and religious minorities. Even though he concedes that these groups can exhibit Somewhere-ish attitudes – prioritising stable families, for example – he frames them throughout as the cloud on the Somewheres’ horizon, the blot that has darkened the Somewheres’ previously sunny landscape. It is their arrival that has changed Britain beyond recognition, their presence that has to be dealt with.

I’d contend that this ‘blot’ applies exclusively to large Muslim communities where whole ‘landscapes’ have changed beyond recognition and the hapless outsider is subjected to a palpable atmosphere of hostility. This doesn’t apply, on the whole, to Jewish communities, apart from, say, the odd rudeness or brusqueness emanating from some of the ultra orthodox. But Freedland insists on conflating them. He continues:

“Perhaps my own experience as a member of Britain’s Jewish community has skewed my perspective, but I’d suggest that the very qualities Goodhart most admires among the Somewheres – including neighbourliness, trust and a sense of shared destiny – are to be found in Britain’s minorities. They have not caused the social fragmentation he laments: globalisation, automation and a thousand other shifts bear more blame than they do. If anything, and especially in the cities, they point to a remedy for those Anywheres Goodhart believes have become unmoored. Minorities might be more of a model than a threat, more to be emulated than to be feared.”


Where does Jonathan Freedland live? Luton, perhaps? High Wycombe?  Rotherham? I doubt it.

If anything qualifies as ‘targeted fake news’, surely consistently drawing false equivalences between Jews and Muslims comes pretty close.




Monday, 30 January 2017

Fake News

The BBC is leading with “Fake News”. 
Today Programme, defining ‘fake’, differentiates outright fakery from bias. ‘Fake’ news, for example,  means saying someone has died, when clearly they’re still alive.
Oddly enough, the examples given happen to be from ‘far right’ sources. The BBC wants us to beware of Fake News. (Only the likes of the BBC are trustworthy.)


JH: There has always been a load of rubbish in the papers - and on the BBC for that matter - we do our best to get it right and we don’t always succeed, but there is a world of difference between journalists getting it wrong and people deliberately making stuff up; sometimes stupid stuff, sometimes vicious. It’s called fake news and it seems to be all over social media and the internet these days, and today MPs are beginning an inquiry into it.
I’m joined here by two people who know about it, Jim Waterson of Buzzfeed, he’s their political editor of Buzzfeed UK, and Suzanne Franks head of the department for journalism at City University.
Um, Jim, you’re inclined to think that actually we’ve always had loads of fake news and it’s called ‘tabloid news’. 

JW. Yes. So fake news in the purest sense, of somebody completely making up a fake headline like ‘John Humphrys to be next Pope and everyone….. 

JH. Oh you’ve heard… 

JW.….and it’s a great story, we’d all click on it, we’d all share on it and someone would get a lot of ad revenue. That sort of story hasn’t really taken hold in the UK. What I’m seeing when we’ve done analyses of UK political topics on Buzzfeed is essentially what people are sharing and reading is traditional British tabloid journalism, relying on facts, exaggeration completely taken out of context. 

JH. But it’s getting worse than that, surely. 

JW No, but it’s getting worse because the incentives on Facebook and online are to ramp up the headlines even on traditional tabloids to keep pushing up the limits to get more traffic, and the end effect is that we’re seeing rubbish seeping into the news eco system, but it’s often coming in the UK from traditional outlets. 

JH. And are you worried about that? 

JH.I am worried by that. I meant the other side of it is the publishers that exist only on Facebook, for instance Britain First, the far-right group publishes a lot of stuff from Facebook, which is completely dubious, Islamophobic and made up. 

JH.But if we know where they’re coming from and if they call, themselves Britain First, that gives us a clue, doesn’t it - we can discount them if we choose to? 

JW.We can, but a lot of people don’t have that level of media literacy or aren’t viewing it in that way; it’s appearing in their Facebook feed, just one of many things that is on their feed and they just see it as an isolated piece of content. If you read The Sun you get where it’s coming from; if you read the Guardian as a paper you get where it’s coming from. If you’re jus seeing isolated stories appearing in a newspaper with no context and a headline you like the sound of, you don’t really think, where is this coming from. 

JH.Suzanne, that’s a worry? 

(Suzanne Franks) Yes it is indeed I do think that’s a worry because a lot of audiences are unable, as we’ve just heard, to distinguish between the provenance of different stories. They don’t understand that some are, you know, proper legitimate stories that have been checked, and the next thing that appears the news feed is a load of rubbish that’s been made up. 

JH.So what would you do about it? 

SF.Well, I think the select committee are looking at some kind of way of stamping different news sources, which is one thing we could look at, but i think the most important thing is to look at the big platforms, where a lot of people are getting their news from, the Googles and the Facebooks, and putting the onus on them, because they are effectively now editors. They are producing news, even though they don't like to admit to that. 

JH.Mmm. So in that case, Jim, as far as Buzzfeed is concerned, you’re an internet site, obviously, what sort of restrictions should there be on you that have been applied - not restrictions, that’s the  wrong word - what kind of er concerns should we have about websites, specifically as opposed to the newspapers. 

JW.Well I think the distinction is less between websites and newspapers, and more between professional organisations and unknown organisations, so for instance Buzzfeed we view ourselves as a professional news organisation that just happens to publish only online and not in a newspaper. 

JH.But again, if we’re illiterate in the sense that we don’t spend half our life worrying about news like people in our trade do, of course that’s our job, but most people don’t, how do they know that Buzzfeed is any different from one of another thousand websites. 

JW.Purely through a reputation we’ve built up over the last few years for doing proper reporting, and people are responding to that, but the next challenge is: previously news used to be distributed by people who owned either broadcast channels so either the BBCs and ITVs of this world, or who owned a newspaper in the sense of owning a distribution network and a load of printing presses. Now anyone can distribute the news and the problem is that while we thought that that would result in you know, a greater plurality… 

JH.It’s a democracy..

JW…. It’s overwhelmingly positive in many respects but it’s meant that it’s levelled the playing field to the extent that a link produced by the BBC can have as much value online as something that a bloke in any pub has written on his  - you know - just sat and written on his Facebook can has gone just as viral as proper news story. 

JH.D’you agree with that Suzanne? 

Suzanne Franks: Yes I mean during the, I mean the sort of high point was during the latter stages of the presidential election when you were getting these - you know- little nerds in their back bedroom in Macedonia, were, were setting up these sites and getting millions of hits full of fake news about the election. 

JH.But there are a lot of people out there who will say, um, why should I be stopped from propagating my views, if the Sun or the BBC or whatever can do it. Not of course that the BBC has views, but um… 

SF.,,,but it’s not views. What we’re talking about here is absolute wrong facts. 

JH.Right, so you’re drawing a very clear distinction between somebody’s opinion and somebody saying, the Pope supports Donald Trump. That’s a  Fact. 

SF.Yes, I mean I think that’s the kind of new phenomenon we’re having to deal with now, that, as I said, particularly during the latter stages of the election, that all these rubbish - you know - the one about Obama banning the Oath of Allegiance, and all of that, or that the Queen is going to abdicate because of brevet. These are complete, absolute fabrications, just like in Brave New World, you know, two plus two equals five - I mean these are wrong facts, which you know… 

JH.Alright. From both of you in ten seconds apiece, a single action that governments, politicians, should take to stop it happening, is there one “ Is there anything that can do.

JW..The only person who can do anything on a massive scale is Mark Zuckerberg who to my mind is increasingly the most powerful man in UK media and he’s based in California. 

JH.And runs Facebook

JW.And runs Facebook 

JH.Suzanne? 

SF.Yes, it’s the platform. Platforms have got to take ownership of the fact that they are now the editors and producers of, of where vast numbers of people now get their news. 

JH.Professor Suzanne Franks, Jim Watson, thank you very much.
*********


That’s covered fake news. Now, what about bias?