Facebook's 'Journalism Project' Seeks To Strengthen Online News (cnet.com) 119
Facebook is taking more responsibility over its role in the media industry. CNET reports on the company's announcement: The social network on Wednesday announced a new initiative called the Journalism Project, which seeks to put Facebook on steadier footing with the news industry. As part of the effort, the social network will work to help train journalists on how to use Facebook as a reporting tool and assist the public in figuring out how to sniff out misinformation. "We know that our community values sharing and discussing ideas and news," Fidji Simo, director of product for the project, wrote in a blog post. "And as a part of our service, we care a great deal about making sure that a healthy news ecosystem and journalism can thrive." The initiative is part of an about-face for Facebook, which for a long time shrugged off its influence on the news and downplayed the impact of misinformation circulated on Facebook on the 2016 presidential election. The company is now acknowledging the significant role it plays in the consumption of news online, along with its ability to shape journalism's future.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, why does this remind me of a quote?
Re: (Score:2)
You are confusing "information" with "bullshit". Please don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's not as if anyone can label anything they don't like BS, right?
If you want to play the Popper card and say we have to be intolerant of intolerance, then just remember that this was justified in terms of self-defense against those who would use "fists or pistols" instead of rational argument. So Popper is more properly invoked against the jihadist types who actually encourage others to murder people in truck attacks and such and those who defend them.
"Influenced election". (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
I know of at least one person who offered their opinion on Facebook (that doesn't necessarily follow social views) and linked to articles supporting their opinion. Their account has been banned from posting for 60 days.
Based on this, It's not necessarily fake news the puppet masters are after. It's censorship.
Your one single data-point, based on an anecdote of someone else's experience, and devoid of further details, is hardly enough for the rest of us to conclude that it's "censorship."
America. Land of the Censored, Home of the Unaware.
Before you get too righteous and entitled, remind yourself that Facebook is not the government, and you don't pay for their service. They can set terms of service, and ban people for breaking them.
Re: (Score:2)
Sooo, your internet service you get from "not the government" isn't a right, then?
If they offer me free internet access, then there would be a valid comparison. But they don't. With an ISP, the consumer is the customer. With Facebook, the consumer is the product.
Try again.
Re: (Score:2)
Fake news has *always* influenced the election.
Back in the 60s and 70s, there would be politician lackey's who would call down the voter list, and tell people that one of the candidates was a communist. These are old tricks.
Re: (Score:2)
America. Land of the Censored, Home of the Unaware.
How about if you just draw conclusions about Facebook and not the nation?
Re: (Score:2)
A perfect storm of fake news sites in it for the money with clickbait headlines, and Russia carefully leaking stuff on Clinton and the DNC.
I think we are now starting to see just how influential Russia was. Lots of pro-Russia people in the White House, and a reminder to Trump this week that he had better do what Putin tells him to because they have plenty of material on him too. It's kinda ironic that the guy who bragged about grabbing women by the pussy has now been grabbed by the balls by Putin.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the amount of Russian oligarch involvement with Trump's business, which he won't cede, causing a massive conflict of interest, which is somehow just peachy.
How about a simple "fact checked" icon? (Score:2)
This would benefit both FB and an organization like Snopes. When a story or link is shared, if the text checks out by some fact-checking source that is reputable, the story would get some type of icon showing that it is not pure garbage. If it is text, then it would be cryptographically signed somehow, so changing something in the story would make the icon disappear.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Snopes, reputable. HaHa.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Snopes, reputable. HaHa.
Kindly suggest alternatives.
IMHO, if a fact-checking organization has received both praise and scorn from representatives across the political spectrum, then it has an air of credibility.
But note that the number of time such praise or scorn is expressed may be unbalanced, if one side respects the truth less than the other.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem not to understand how fact checkers work.
Snopes, and other fact checkers, don't go out watching speeches or such looking for something to fact check. They respond to the rumors and claims that circulate through social media. When there is such an omission, there has to be a claim circulating that the omission happened in order to fact check it. That seldom happens, thus it is seldom fact checked.
YOUTUBE (Score:5, Informative)
I find YouTube to be the best fact checker.
The media claimed that Trump mocked a disabled reporter, or more to the point, that Trump mocked a reporter for his disability. Trump did in fact mock a reporter who is disabled. However, there are videos on youtube that will show you that those body movements of his are used regularly, not for mocking disabilities but to personify his view of someone who doesn't have an answer.
Most of the mainstream media also claimed that Donald Trump said soldiers that commit suicide are weak. He said no such thing. Go to youtube and watch the actual speech. He was discussing the lack of care available for our veterans, particularly the lack of mental healthcare. He was discussing triggers, and our soldiers being left without the support they deserved. Every soldier and veteran I know who watched that video loved it. In fact, it was the first, and almost the only time I watched Donald Trump and thought to myself that he looked presidential.
Watch MSNBC, they'll show you protestors at a Tea Party rally outside one of President Obama's townhall meetings. They'll show you a man carrying an AR-15 on his back. They'll state how this is intimidating and seemingly rather racist. Go to youtube and you'll find the another video of that same rally. Except this video will clearly show the man in question with an AR-15 strapped to his back is in fact a black American.
So ya.....trust me, conservatives are very aware of how fake most of the mainstream news is. Liberals on the other hand are stuck thinking the only fake news is Fox/Faux News. Well, it is fairly fake. But it doesn't have the market nor is it even close to being top dog.
Yup... (Score:2)
Go to youtube and you will find Donald Trump using similar behaviors of others, usually whenever they don't have an answer. I still think mocking like that was immature.
Did Donald Trump mock a reporter? Yes
Did Donald Trump mock a reporter who had a handicap? Yes
Did Donald Trump mock the handicap of a reporter? No
But funny, how liberals forget when Obama mentioned his low bowling score in an interview, and proceeded to state that he bowled like someone in the Special Olympics.
Gee, guess criticism doesn't ap
President Obama (Score:2)
But funny, how liberals forget when Obama mentioned his low bowling score in an interview, and proceeded to state that he bowled like someone in the Special Olympics.
Gee, guess criticism doesn't apply if you have a [D]
Re: (Score:2)
Searching desperately for a video somewhere, anywhere, that allows you to continue to continue to believe the way you already do is not "fact-checking". In fact, its pretty much the opposite. Its more like "re-bunking".
Re: (Score:2)
...and of course he spent the exact same amount of effort checking into the veracity of those youtube videos as he did looking for them in the first place?
Here's the difference....
Fact-checking: I like this information. I'd like it to be true. That's really dangerous because it makes me easy prey for charlatans, so before I go spreading this around, I should go check on it to make sure it isn't misleading. Perhaps I might even have to change my thinking on this matter to conform to what I find.
Rebunki
Re: (Score:2)
Fox News: Trump can walk on water, cure the sick, and raise the dead.
Washington Post: Trump doesn't know how to swim. He also takes away jobs from honest doctors and gravediggers.
Re: (Score:2)
Fox News: Trump can walk on water.
CNN: Um, that puddle under Trump? That's not exactly water!
Re: (Score:1)
I see this a lot. So I offer the same challenge.
Link me to a single false article, with the evidence of why it is false. And remember- you disliking the facts does not make them false. Bias is not false, either. False is false. So all you have to do is show the evidence that proves the Snopes article wrong.
Also not- evidence does not mean that it was popular with blogs and memes. Evidence means if the claim is someone said X, and there is proof that it they actually said Y- show that proof, not just repeati
Snopes is NOT reputable for politics. (Score:2)
I have also noticed an interesting trend recently. A number of political articles on Snopes and fact check sites, where the conservative viewpoint or statement was in fact CORRECT. And they even discuss the evidence of such. But interestingly enough, in several of these cases the fact check articles NEVER post a conclusion. They don't include their "True or False" meters, etc.
And I have wondered, why is it that these articles where either the criticism of a conservative is debunked or the criticism of a
Re: (Score:2)
US politics vs a SJW that can ban links?
Blasphemy? No funny cartoons that upset any faith.
Germany? No questioning open boarders and illegal migrants.
A monarchies or kingdoms human rights record? No linking.
A kingdom at war? No links.
Selling weapons to a kingdom at war?
No jokes about a long list of topics thanks to a few powerful SJW teams
Re: (Score:2)
No, you have it backwards. the misinformation click sites are the ones ANGRY about this. Not the ones doing it. They have been shitting in through an open window for a while, now they are mad that the owner of the window chooses to close it.
Not Just Misinformation (Score:4, Insightful)
I personally feel fixing the filters would do a great deal to stop the spread of fake news.
Re: (Score:2)
What they are saying is (Score:2, Insightful)
that they care that only the right kind of propaganda reaches the audience, and that inconvenient truths etc. are labeled as "misinformation".
Just sounds like censorship (Score:2)
^subject.
By that rationale the Chinese "Great Firewall" is also China taking responsibility into what content their people can consume or not consume. If anyone thinks Facebook filters will be objective and accurate, they should pay more attention to history classes.
(Now then again I don't understand why people get their news from Facebook at all, but that's a different topic)
Flag #FAKENEWS (Score:2)
if find("Russia+Hacked+Election+Trump)
It won't work because... (Score:3)
...it's not what (most? many?) people want. They want their prefabricated beliefs to be bolstered by the "news" they consume and are very much not interested in "real news", aka facts. Just wade through the other comments here claiming FB will now just filter out everything from one end of the political spectrum in favor of the other. Those people will likely use the "fact checked" indicator as a marker of stories to avoid, since they are obviously going to be slanted and "fake".
"Misinformation" (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll start to believe this hoo-ha about "fake news" being a SERIOUS effort to raise the standards of journalism when I see one reputable mainstream outlet reporting that 'hands up don't shoot' in Ferguson was ALSO 'fake news'.
Until then, it's just "my party lost" biased after-election whinging.
Re: (Score:2)
"Hands up don't shoot" wasn't fake news, it was something that witnesses actually said and which people used in actual protests. Reporting it as such was completely factual. Similarly, Buzzfeed's report on pissgate isn't fake news either, because they are reporting on an unsubstantiated report that was leaked and not presenting it as anything more.
"Witnesses said the man shouted 'hands up don't shoot'" - not fake news
"The man said "hands up don't shoot" - fake news
Fake news is when sites either make stuff u
PROFIT! (Score:3)
Now our fake news is called ads that pay to post i (Score:2)
Now our fake news is called ads that pay to post it
this is a fake news story (Score:1)
or is it?
Nobody knows for sure!
Re:Facebook wants more liberal news (Score:5, Insightful)
There shouldn't be conservative or liberal news. There should just be news.
Re:Facebook wants more liberal news (Score:5, Insightful)
There shouldn't be conservative or liberal news. There should just be news.
Nice in theory and if journalists actually aspired to be moral and ethical in their reporting it would be great. However, the problem with all this is NEWS (fake or not) is now a business. You have to sell advertisements or subscriptions to pay the bills... So what *you* think is news may just be some tall tale to somebody else and what gets reported is what makes the most money.
Facebook has already shown it's bias toward liberal news and expecting them to change their spots is fool hardy.
Re: (Score:2)
However, the problem with all this is NEWS (fake or not) is now a business.
Now? Really? It's always been a business, and it's not the business of selling news, it's the business of selling advertising, and always has been. Those that have tried to sell news (subscriptions) have not done well at all.
Your eyeballs are the product, and to survive, the news has to show your eyeballs what you want to see, true or not. Whether or not something actually happened is completely unconnected from whether or not it's "news." Only whether or not you'll watch it.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why I dont get my news from businesses... or sites with obvious agendas.
I'd find sources like the BBC to be trustworthy than the Guardian who I find more trustworthy than the Daily Mail which is Fox New's redneck cousin who moved to England and pretends to be erudite.
But I don't trust any one source 100%,
Re: (Score:2)
Nice in theory and if journalists actually aspired to be moral and ethical in their reporting it would be great. However, the problem with all this is NEWS (fake or not) is now a business. You have to sell advertisements or subscriptions to pay the bills... So what *you* think is news may just be some tall tale to somebody else and what gets reported is what makes the most money.
This is exactly why I think CNN, the sole major national news outlet striving for actual "balanced reporting", is IMHO worse than all but the worst partisan outlets. As much as I might dislike Fox News and disagree with their morals, at least they have some. They tried a bit to tell people how bad Trump would be for the country, and covered other Republican candidates. CNN OTOH realized Trump was ratings gold, precisely because he was so bad for the country, and practically became the 24/7 Trump channel. CN
Trust me.... (Score:5, Insightful)
There isn't a conservative out there disagreeing with you. But well, gee.....mainstream news is so actively liberal that they'll give their presidential candidate the debate questions.
Re: (Score:1)
Yep, Fox News is soo liberal and since they are the biggest news provider in the country, I would consider them the Main Stream Media.
What's Fox News have? 3% of the entire news audience when you include the audience of newspapers such as The New York Times and the "hey-the-Russians-hacked-the-electricity-grid-THE-RUSSIANS-oh-wait-NEVERMIND-fake-news-publishing" The Washington Post?
And you completely ignored the fact that members of non-Fox News media were the ones actively colluding with Hillary's campaign to help her get elected - against both Sanders and Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Every reasonable, educated person in the country was against Trump
If everyone you know agrees with you, you need to get out more.
Re: (Score:2)
If everyone you know agrees with you, you need to get out more.
That's the very definition of living in a bubble, or being an ivory tower elitist. Take your pick, but people on the left is currently stuck there and are more likely to turn around and socially reject people who are of any other political choice. Hell I'm sure someone will say "look at all that shit you spout on about, blahblahblah." Or something, yet I've got exactly one person on my "foe" list, and they were absolutely batshit insane. Even ol'serviscope or animojo aren't on there, and I argue against
Re: (Score:2)
Fox News had about 2.3 million viewers last year. They are the single biggest news broadcaster in the USA right now. The NYT has about 1.3 million digital subscribers (and about another half million dead-tree readers, but that number is dropping like a stone).
So I'm sorry if it bursts somebody's bubble, but you simply do not get more "mainstream" than Fox News is right now.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point is that Fox has 2.3, but than if the others all have 1.5 million with CNN, NBC, ABC, HuffPo, NY Times, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Sorry, I think the commenter just thought readers were intelligent enough to understand that.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point is that Fox has 2.3, but than if the others all have 1.5 million with CNN, NBC, ABC, HuffPo, NY Times, etc, etc, etc, etc.
You ball up every single non-Conservative outlet (some things on that list aren't close to liberal. CNN is essentially the 24/7 Trump network. But fine, do it), add all those up, and they probably have more viewers than Fox. But that's before we add in popular Right Wing networks, newspapers or websites (eg: CNBC, Drudge, Breitbart, WSG and nearly every other paper owned by Murdoch).
That's a loooong way to go to still be able to front like you're the underdog.
Re: (Score:2)
There isn't a conservative out there disagreeing with you. But well, gee.....mainstream news is so actively liberal that they'll give their presidential candidate the debate questions.
"They" (CNN) didn't give the Clinton the debate questions. CNN contributor (and temporary DNC chair) Donna Brazile did. And she was (rightly) fired for doing it. [wikipedia.org]
CNN and other news networks frequently hire pundits from both parties to be contributors. Despite their dual roles, they're expected to behave properly. Brazile didn't, and she was canned. I would expect nothing less to happen if a contributor from the other side did what she did.
Re: (Score:2)
Right....and that wasn't intended.....
We shoot/fire the messengers, but the not the authors of the message.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There shouldn't be conservative or liberal news. There should just be news.
This is, quite frankly, late 20th-Century thinking. Since the inception of the printing press, news reporting has been partisan. A lot of papers even named themselves after the party/cause they were promoting. This is why every major town in the USA used to have at least two newspapers. You could tell what a person's politics were by the papers they took.
It was only the advent of large national broadcast media that got us the modern conception of "balanced reporting". Unlike newspapers, not just anyone ca
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We went other places. You damn New England liberals follow us everywhere. You ruined the north east. You ruined California. You ruined Colorado.
It's like you much up a place so bad that it's unlivable, then decide to move to the region where folks who don't want invasive government moved to when they left you. And then you just pass all the same stupid laws and taxes over until that place is ruined. In 20-30 years, Denver, Colorado will be an insane mecca of taxes and regulations that will be unbearable.
Re: (Score:1)
Voting should be a constitutionally protected right.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. It should also be done by well informed, educated people who research the issues and candidates, and make choices based on the common good of everyone.
And if we had unicorns that farted cinnamon flavored rainbows, the world would be a more colorful place, too!
Re: (Score:1)
where folks who don't want invasive government moved to
Or you could give up trying to get what you can't have. You have no right to live as an island.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
..and you have no right to impose your slippery slope end-justifies-means logic on everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell him that.
Re: (Score:2)
No one asked to live in an island. We just asked that you quit cutting down all the trees and then moving after you turn lush forests into deserts.
Re: (Score:2)
You damn New England liberals follow us everywhere. You ruined the north east. You ruined California. You ruined Colorado.
It really doesn't matter where the people came from that moved into your state. People don't just move in and take over like that, no matter what it looks like.
It's the cities. The higher your population density, the more liberal the policies.
Re: (Score:2)
Right...and big cities were strongly a northeastern system. The problem is they move to a region that doesn't have huge cities. They migrate toward towns and turn them into cities. Then when those become big cities and destroy the region, the migrate to another region and repeat the process - so on and so on.
See Colorado for current example.
Re: (Score:2)
We went other places. You damn New England liberals follow us everywhere. You ruined the north east. You ruined California. You ruined Colorado.
It's like you much up a place so bad that it's unlivable, then decide to move to the region where folks who don't want invasive government moved to when they left you. And then you just pass all the same stupid laws and taxes over until that place is ruined. In 20-30 years, Denver, Colorado will be an insane mecca of taxes and regulations that will be unbearable. Then you liberals will leave and move to Idaho, the Dakotas, etc.
I bet you'll find that the thing "ruining" Denver is people moving from places like Idaho and the Dakotas because the young people are trying to escape socially repressive areas and college graduates are looking to move to a place with an economy, culture and opportunity. I expect the next places to be ruined will be Texas between Austin, Dallas, and Houston and Georgia with Atlanta as they similarly gain people from the surrounding red states.
Re: Facebook wants more liberal news (Score:4, Insightful)
However, Liberal lies will still get pumped up as truth(s).
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is the king of fake news and post-truth politics. His method is to simply claim that everything that doesn't praise him is fake and everyone is part of a conspiracy against him. People accept it because they have come to think that all politicians lie all the time about everything, and facts are just something you search the internet for to back up your opinion.
If a child did it, you would dismiss it as an immature argument. Because Trump is an old man and now PEOTUS people are forced to take him seri
Re: (Score:2)
I hope it HURTS. I hope your butthurt is so bad your great-great-great grandchildren will never be able to sit down.
You smug, close-minded, virtue-signalling progTARDS deserve it.
And I'm LAUGHING at you and your whiny petulance.
See, this is why we can't have nice things.