Turn on any channel to watch the news or panel discussion show. During the news or panel discussion show, it can be guaranteed the term “fake news” will be used. And, one can almost be guaranteed the mention of the perpetrators of “fake news” would be the alternative media. However, many news organizations in the mainstream media have been guilty of feeding the public news that is not factual aka fake. So, if news organizations engage in providing “fake news” to the public, how are we to know the difference between “fake news” and “factual news?”
When one starts reading various news sites or watching TV news shows, mainstream as well as alternative independent outlets, it is easy to get caught up into the mix of what is fake, what is truth, what is a combination, etc. It’s a long list to try to wade through to determine whether what one is being “fed” is fact-based and truthful.
According to Jon Rappoport at Infowars.com, there are ten basic forms of fake news that are used to present a “false picture of reality.” He then runs down the ten traditions sub-categories, giving examples of some.
* Direct lying about matters of fact.
* Leaving out vital information.
* Limited hangout. (This is an admission of a crime or a mistake, which only partially reveals the whole truth. The idea is that by admitting a fraction of what really happened and burying the biggest revelations, people will be satisfied and go away, and the story will never be covered again.)
* Shutting down the truth after publishing it—includes failing to follow up and investigate a story more deeply.
* Not connecting dots between important pieces of data.
* Censoring the truth, wherever it is found (or calling it “fake news”).
* Using biased “experts” to present slanted or false “facts.”
* Repeating a false story many times—this includes the echo-chamber effect, in which a number of outlets “bounce” the false story among themselves.
* Claiming a reasonable and true consensus exists, when it doesn’t, when there are many important dissenters, who are shut out from offering their analysis.
* Employing a panoply of effects (reputation of the media outlet, voice quality of the anchor, acting skills, dry mechanical language, studio lighting, overlay of electronic transmissions, etc.) to create an impression of elevated authority which is beyond challenge.
In providing an example of a news story that contained all ten sub-categories, Rappoport identified two additional sub-categories: “if one lie doesn’t quite fly, tell a much bigger lie”; and, “accusing their opponents of committing the crimes they are, in fact, committing.” He then recalled a news story from 2009 that contained 11 elements of “fake news,” the Swine Flu pandemic.
When watching the news or reading the news, from either mainstream or alternative media, the individual can scrutinize the report for these 10 or 12 sub-categories that characterize news as fake. It will take a bit of reading or watching different reports about the same story from mainstream media and alternative media while engaging in a bit of skepticism, asking questions and then looking for answers, and doing a little deductive reasoning for possible gains. Granted, it will take a bit of time; but, it will be worth it when fake news or discrepancies can be discovered, which will lead to a more informed citizenry.
Read or watch news media that are in opposition to your views. That means reading or watching a healthy dose of both liberal and conservative media organizations spread across mainstream and alternative media. But, always ask questions, especially question what the outcome could be if this or that happened, was put in place, and/or allowed to continue. In other words, look for the consequences as well as unintended consequences.
An example to use that is current is the alleged “hacking” of the election by Russia to ensure a Trump win — that’s the narrative being given to the American public by the government. However, is that fact or fake? What would be gained by the federal government by peddling the story that Russia hacked the US election in favor of Trump? Then, what about the integrity of the intelligence community — remember the weapons of mass destruction held by Saddam Hussein of Iraq? And, don’t forget the outcome of the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s unauthorized, unsecure email server. While the FBI found her in violation of the law, the agency did not recommend prosecution.
In having to question and research news, one may not always come up with all of the facts; but, you would have enough information to form your own opinion instead of parroting talking points without any basis in fact. The hacking of US elections by the Russians, which is false, resulted in the Obama administration through the Department of Homeland Security to federalize or centralize the election process in violation of the Constitution.
Here are some questions that swirled around for me in researching the alleged Russian hacking hoax.
Is it odd that Congress is quick to jump to act on “intelligence” these agencies produce after knowing the Obama administration gutted personnel from every orifice of government who were in opposition to his (Obama’s) views/agenda?
Why would the Russian government leave their fingerprints all over the hacking when allegedly trying to influence the US presidential election? These operatives are not amateurs. The voting machines are not accessible by the internet.
Isn’t it odd that intelligence agency spokespersons are quick to point out that intelligence should not be “politicized” while that is exactly what has happened under the current administration?
Coming from an administration that has continually lied to the citizenry of this republic, why does anyone buy anything this administration puts forward as fact just on say so?
Why is this administration saying Russia hacked the emails from Podesta, Clinton and the DNC to influence the election when no one has contested the content of the emails as false, the receiver of the information states Russia was not the source on multiple occasions, and no evidence has been proffered that substantiates the Russian hacking claim?
It is shameful in the most free country in the world that citizens would need to scrutinize, question, research and deduce facts when reading or watching the news or dealing with information presented by this administration. Citizens deserve better from the news agencies and definitely deserve the truth and facts from our own government. But, the mainstream media has become the well-oiled propaganda machine for the federal government and this administration that would make Nazi Germany and the former USSR jealous.
Until the media ceases to be the tool of this administration and globalists, citizens will have to engage in due diligence to discover the facts leading to the truth.