John Stossel's Speech On Fake News

When evaluating California Senator Dobb’s proposed Bill 135, one should ask whether it will be effective or will this Bill only fall short with education budget cuts. There are benefits when social strategies are taught to school age children, unfortunately with social medians rapidly change, it will be hard to identify the success and effectiveness in the near future. Perhaps the better strategies are those constantly been developed by social networks and social news media giants, for example, Facebook, Instagram, and NPR. In December 2016 Facebook launch tools for their users to be able to identify and combat fake news, similarly, NPR informs their readers is ways to identify fake news by performing simply self-investigative steps (Ball, 2017). Heppard suggest assessing the story’s credibility; reading pass the headlines, background check on the author, biases being portrayed, and using fact-checkers websites ((Heppard, 2017). By evolving with the constant changing platforms, these social networks and social news media are effectively keeping their users up to date with informative and strategies to identifying fake

“I am not going to give you a question. You are fake news.” This is the now infamous response from President Donald Trump during his first press conference since taking office when asked “Sir, can you give us a chance to ask a question?” by CNN reporter Jim Acosta (Johnson, 2017). President Trump’s dismissal of Accosta sparked the colloquial usage of the term “fake news,” a phrase the current president uses to lambaste media sources who report stories that do not present a favorable impression of his presidency. However, true “fake news,” has existed for far longer than Donald Trump’s presidency and includes three main types: satire, biased reporting, and deliberate misinformation. Fake news has grown in quantity and now Americans across the country are expressing concerns about not being able to trust media sources once considered honest and reputable, along with having trouble distinguishing between real and fake news.

The national media is instrumental in allowing the electorate to develop opinions about contemporary issues. The media is incredibly influential and its power can be wielded for the benefit of all, or it can become a detriment to society. Some media outlets seek to sensationalize the news, sacrificing informing voters in favor of the bottom line. It is through people and organizations who seek to provide the most accurate and impartial view of an event that popular sovereignty gains much of its power. A commitment to informing the public, even when the information conflicts with a writer’s social and political philosophy, can be a difficult one to maintain. Yet, reporters uphold it everyday. This can be seen in the news site CNN (Cable News Network), which is known for having a liberal bias. Despite said bias, it does not shy away from portraying Hillary Clinton, a democrat, as a flawed candidate in an effort to be unbiased. Such a commitment is essential to creating a political and social dialogue in our nation, and as the saying goes, “when dialogue fails, democracy fails.”

Everything is a lie. Every spoken word is false, every written text is fallacious, and every form of media is erroneous. The speed and ease of information sharing has allowed people to submit anything they want into the mass jumble of online data called the Web. In his article, “Truth Lies Here,” Michael Hirschorn argues that the Web has become a place of fabricated facts and because of the massive amount of false information on the internet, nobody believes anything. “[D]isturbances in politics and media feel like symptoms of a larger epistemological, even civilizational, rot” (Hirschorn 64). Though this article may support Hirschorn’s argument, it is not strong, to say the least. This article lacks originality nor is it informative, it does little in addressing the opposition, and it contains numerous logical fallacies. All in all, this article is not persuasive.

On September 10th, Katie Sanders from PunditFact and former writer from Politifact Florida gave a speech at the Bob Graham Center titled Pants on Fire: Misinformation in American Politics. The talk and subsequent Q&A centered on the perpetuation of misinformation that is experienced in contemporary American politics as well as what journalists and common people alike can do to combat it. Though these were the focal points, three related tangents were my main takeaway from the experience.

Thesis: Dissemination of news through social media allows for rapid distribution and incredible accessibility, but can lead to decreased understanding, stifled discussion, and even the propagation of fake news stories.

There are newspapers (such as the “National Enquirer”) renowned for their fictitious (although admittedly attention-grabbing) headlines, yet we hardly hesitate to assume the information is fabricated. On the other hand, when our trusted news sources present their stories, many automatically assume the information is true, which is why “[e]rroneous reporting by established organizations is a bigger threat than

News are more than just facts and information, it is knowledge that affects a human’s life by helping them stay up-to-date. News have the influence to communicate and aid an individual's outcome on how to make decisions. With that being, in today’s society there are thousands of media outlets around the world. Despite that media plays a major role in one’s life, often times publishers revise the truth and intertwine the event which ultimately has a major impact on the perspective and opinions that people possess as they get manipulated by these news outlets.By examining the event of the September 11 attacks (9/11) from the perspective of “The Guardian” and “The Los Angeles Times”, one can determine the similarities, differences, and the “truth”

Fake news is bad for anyone who is reading it. It causes drama. Leads people to the wrong conclusion. It also gives people false information.

For example, Donald Trump proudly stated that “any negative polls are fake news,” and constantly refers to mainstream media outlets as “fake news media.” To compound the effect, according to MSNBC, a leading Republican Congressman, Lamar Smith, advised Americans to get their news directly from the President because “it might be the only way to get the unvarnished truth.” The reason why undermining credibility of news media is so scary is that it reduces their ability to hold politicians accountable. With public’s trust in cable news plummeting (all-time low of 32% according to Gallup), more and more individuals are looking for alternative sources online, which makes them more susceptible to fake news, and so the vicious cycle

In today’s society, remaining connected and knowledgeable of current events and the newest trends is vital to staying ahead in business, education, and social standing. This information is supplied to everyone through the internet, newspapers, television, and radio. One can tune into stations such as CNN, NBC, Fox News, Al-Jazeera, and many others (“SQs of Media Outlets”). In order to meet the needs of viewers, readers, and listeners, the ideal media system would contain accurate, quick information, with a purely impartial view on the facts as they are known. However, this modern media system has not maintained an objective view, pushing opinionated and slanted reporting onto the population in order to create profit and gain customers. The exploitation of information media for personal gain has created a toxic and inaccurate present, constant in today’s society.

Denzel Washington, a critically acclaimed actor, had recently and famously stated, “If you don’t read the newspaper then you’re uninformed. If you do read it, then you’re misinformed.” The quote had derived from the recent incident including fake news about Denzel Washington endorsing Donald Trump. Bringing to light the idea of fake, manipulated, or biased information, it’s clear to see Denzel is not the only victim of such actions. Similarly, most

“Fake” news commentators are comedians. They come in each day to work and take a look at the news and choose what will be the subject of their show for that evening. With pen and paper in hand they sit down and study the news clips for anything they can find that funny, wrong, off, hypocritical, biased, contradictory, brushed over, hidden, or twisted into sounding good when it really is not. Most days the job entails poking a lot of fun at our government, our political leaders, our corporations, our silly rules and laws. Some days though, the news is so horrific, so scary, and so evil- that jokes are just not appropriate from a human standpoint to be made. On nights like these, “fake” news reporters deliver

As the world evolves and changes due to the explosion of technology, so does mankind's ways of intellectual comprehension of informative news. The present day of news has overemphasized the meaning of fake news; which represents any form of false information that is illustrated as factual news. That tends to spread throughout the internet and the media. Misinformed news has taken over the world in so many ways, such as the birth of satirical and sketchy news, the financial motivation to publish actual false news, and difficult to sustain news.

The recent surge in popularity of social media comes with a price: fake news. Fake news is defined as news or media that has been altered or modified. Journalists have begun to analyze why that fake news exists and why it continues exist. Two authors, Eoin O’Carroll and Kevin D. Williamson, both have written articles about fake news. Eoin O’Carroll’s article “How Information Overload Helps Spread Fake News,” discusses how the media has bombarded us with news stories, blurring the distinct lines between real and fake news. Kevin D. Williamson, a journalist for the National Review, writes in his article “‘Fake News, Media and Voters: Shared Reality Must Be Acknowledged” that the news is not fake; it just does not align with one’s personal beliefs. Both authors successfully appeal to their audiences’ emotions and feelings, but O’Carroll is more likely to succeed than Williamson in persuading his audience to try and combat fake news because the writer presents himself as someone the intended readers will more readily identify with and offers evidence that his readers will find more compelling.