Patterico's Pontifications

12/8/2016

Fake News Complaints by Big Media Are Fake

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:00 am



Your must-read for the day, if you have not read it already, is a piece by Nathan J. Robinson in Current Affairs titled The Necessity of Credibility. It thoroughly exposes many examples of “fake news” by Big Media — including their claims that conservatives are routinely engaged in spreading “fake news.”

The piece opens with a discussion of a topic that irritated me quite a bit recently: the pack of bleating media sheep who claimed that Trump was blatantly lying when he said that millions of people voted illegally. (The claim has not been proved, but is far from outlandish.) As Robinson explains, the Washington Post “fact-checkers” pounced, with Glenn Kessler calling Trump’s claim “bogus” and decrying Trump’s “wild allegations.”

But when people wondered where Trump got the idea that a significant percentage of people had voted illegally, the Trump transition team cited . . . a piece from the Washington Post. Whoops!

Then it got even more farcical. Now the “fact-checkers” gave four Pinocchios to the Trump camps’s claim that the piece had been in the Washington Post. How could that be, when it actually had been in the Washington Post? Because, the fact-checkers claimed, it had been in a blog hosted by the Washington Post. Never mind that the URL begins: “www.washingtonpost.com.” Never mind that, as Robinson points out, the blog’s name appears “in tiny letters beneath the ordinary full-sized Washington Post logo.”

Who are you going to believe, the fact-checkers or your lying eyes?

The Washington Post itself was the source for the Trump claim that the Washington Post claimed was bogus and alarming. Fake! And then the Washington Post tried to deny they were the source, when they had been!

Fake fake fakety fake!

The voter fraud story is indicative of a much wider problem with U.S. political media: its attempts to point out Trump’s falsehoods are consistently undermined by the media’s own lack of credibility on matters of fact. Especially with the rise of “fact-checking” websites, whose analysis is frequently shoddy and dubious, the political media contribute to the exact kind of “post-truth” atmosphere that journalists criticize Trump for furthering.

An interesting and illuminating example of this can be found in the controversy over so-called “fake news.” A few weeks after the election, a series of critics lamented the role of “fake” stories during the election cycle. A study by BuzzFeed reported that “the top-performing fake election news stories on Facebook generated more engagement than the top stories from major news outlets.” A number of commentators saw this as a bad sign for the future democratic governance. Andrew Smith of The Guardian suggested that the proliferation of false stories on social media was eroding the very foundations of reality. In the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof solemnly concluded that “fake news is gaining ground, empowering nuts and undermining our democracy.”

But, as Robinson notes, many of the examples of “fake news” offered up by Big Media are themselves fake.

Particularly pernicious is the rise of “fact-checking” websites, which are ostensibly dedicated to promoting objective truth over eye-of-the-beholder lies, but which often simply serve as mouthpieces for centrist orthodoxies, thereby further delegitimizing the entire notion of “fact” itself. As Current Affairs has previously argued at length, websites like PolitiFact frequently disguise opinion and/or bullshit as neutral, data-based inquiry.

This happens in a couple of ways. First, such websites frequently produce meaningless statistics, such as trying to measure the percentage of a candidate’s statements that are false. PolitiFact constantly spreads its statistics about how X percent of Trump or Clinton’s statements are rated false, declining to mention the fact that this statistic is empty of any content, since the statements that are evaluated haven’t been randomly selected. The centrist biases of fact-checkers also affect their decisionmaking. Fact-checkers have, for example, insisted that it was wrong to say Hillary Clinton wanted to get rid of the 2nd Amendment. But this isn’t a “factual” dispute at all. It depends on one’s interpretation of the 2nd Amendment’s essential meaning, something that varies based on one’s personal political values.

Robinson gives several specific examples of instances in which fact-checkers called something “false” that was literally true because of a political argument about the interpretation of the true fact. This is something I have railed about many times before. As one example among many, take Carly Fiorina’s claim that she went from secretary to CEO: admitted by the fact-checkers to be true, but deemed false by the fact-checkers because of its implications. There are an appalling number of similar “fact-checks” by these propagandists masquerading as neutral arbiters of truth.

The piece is long and chock-full of interesting anecdotes, facts, and quotes. It’s worth your time and gets the coveted read the whole thing recommendation. I’ll end the post with this quote:

Those who say Donald Trump dwells in a “post-truth” realm are not wrong. He lies a hell of a lot, and misrepresents a hell of a lot more. But in order for the “post-truth” charge to be taken seriously, one must be careful and reliable in calling out “lies.”

Amen.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

39 Responses to “Fake News Complaints by Big Media Are Fake”

  1. “Editor’s Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot’s list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list.”

    So in reliance on an un-checked list by an outside group that insists on anonymity, the WaPo designated a bunch of sites as Russian propaganda tools. And this is the “real news” outfit that is getting all uppity about “fake news.”

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/251284/

    Colonel Haiku (64320c)

  2. Note how WaPo folds when the lawsuits begin…

    Colonel Haiku (64320c)

  3. A couple months after Rolling Stone magazine was successfully sued for publishing fake news, President Barack gave an interview to Rolling Stone where he trashed sites that make fake news!
    Oh President Barack, you’re so cheeky!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  4. Everyone has to read critically everything they read all the time. There is no golden seal of approval that can remove that responsibility or negate the effects of neglecting that responsibility.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  5. amazon turdlord jeffy bezos bought the wapo and all the propaganda sluts that go with it cause of he has a very specific turdlord agenda, not cause of he has an interest in for reals honest journalism

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  6. @happyfeet: i like amazon it is a good service what enables me to get my chimineas reasonably priced and delivered in a short time from the convenience of my living room

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  7. i live in a declining blue state economy where i can use the services of amazon turdlord jeffy bezos to cut a *lot* of union trash out of my supply chain

    and i do

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  8. but i’m expiring my prime here pretty soon

    just gonna go awhile without and just see how that goes

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  9. This is a good, fair post based on an amazingly honest read from Commentary magazine. Thanks, Patterico.

    elissa (f07c99)

  10. Few people at bozos actually read their own paper, great find patterico

    narciso (d1f714)

  11. “millions of people who voted illegally”

    Do we HAVE to assume illegal voting is confined to non-citizens? What about mail / absentee ballot fraud? “Aggressive assistance” maybe…

    One liberal reporter has been fighting this battle in the city of Dallas over over a decade.

    http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/license-to-scam-6390130

    http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/vote-early-vote-often-6391857

    pouncer (806511)

  12. The MSM doesn’t want any competition; they want to maintain their monopoly on fake news! (LOL)

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  13. Do we assume somehow that the exploitation of the ill, the elderly, the military, and others is somehow “baked in” to results and a problem of such long standing that we allow for in, permit it, ignore it in newspaper articles, and just have to live with it; while NEW sorts of fraud wherein resident-non-citizens, recently pardoned felons, and migrant students and snow-birds who vote twice (once at “home” and once at “destination” precincts) are all somehow a new sort of accusation that must be investigated and de-bunked with some number of “Pinocchios” ?

    Does Al Franken have any comment on this issue?

    pouncer (806511)

  14. in the past few months both here and at the instapundit site there’s been a measurably large uptick of the number of outbound links to discredited newsporn sites like the “new york times” and amazon turdlord jeffy bezos’s “washington post”

    what’s up with that

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  15. The MSM is facing the same problem Pravda, Izvestia and Xinhua, among others, faced: When the people realize that the “official” news sources cannot be trusted, they turn to word of mouth (or word of internet). What they do then, is try to discredit, suppress, or corrupt that word of mouth (or internet).

    nk (dbc370)

  16. What I call samizdat publications, they don’t always get it right

    narciso (d1f714)

  17. Please let this be real news only for the fact that this could be Zoolander’s replacement –

    http://www.yahoo.com/style/politician-receives-degrading-unsolicited-fashion-tips-from-strangers-were-you-wearing-a-bra-on-thursday-063648358.html

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  18. She’s part of the CP

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  19. The puffington dotes on her,

    narciso (d1f714)

  20. Ruby dhalla does quicken the pulse to a degree.

    narciso (d1f714)

  21. R.I.P. JOHN H. GLENN, JR.

    THE LAST OF THE ORIGINAL SEVEN. AND FIRST AMERIAN ASTRONAUT TO ORBIT EARTH.

    AD ASTRA… AND GODSPEED, JOHN GLENN.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  22. What did bezos, Carlos slim, gannett and even Rupert’s get right on purpose.

    narciso (d1f714)

  23. They say rona ambrose, but I have my doubts.

    narciso (d1f714)

  24. Interesting article,
    and I agree with much of it,
    and then near the end there is a comment on
    how the Clinton email scandal was overblown….

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  25. There are only so many sacred cows that can be sacrificed safely.

    narciso (d1f714)

  26. lol dead cows

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  27. Yep, right next to the mashed potatoes.

    narciso (d1f714)

  28. Lots of both in the Balkans at the most inopportune times.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  29. When I hear this about fake news, the very obvious thing that I am ready to see is claims that some news is fake when it is not. They are almost ready to claim anything bad about Hillary Clinton is fake news. I say this, even though there are false accusations. Saying she is innocent of any wrong doing is more false.

    Before there was this campaign against fake news, there was the campaign against “conspiracy theories” like as if a conspiracy theory couldn’t be true. Of course you have to understand what is possible and what is not. That requires a lot of education about the world, and good judgment. Many times they have the wrong director or of the conspiracy. It is impossible to sustain one, for instance, inside the U.S. government, with the “governemnt” itself running the conspiracy, because of turnover. A conspiracy from outsiode the government taht corrupts people is possible, and maybe one where people stay on the job a long time.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  30. Often they are referring to real events, like in Sanford, but then significant facts and or motives are left out of the picture. So Orlando was about a self hating gay?? Ohio state was about the priliferationnof guns.

    narciso (d1f714)

  31. But when people wondered where Trump got the idea that a significant percentage of people had voted illegally, the Trump transition team cited . . . a piece from the Washington Post. Whoops!

    After Trump tweeted

    “In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally,”

    the New Yorkl Times went to his campaign and they actually cited two things to the New York Times:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/28/upshot/serious-voter-fraud-um-no.html

    When asked on Monday for evidence to support Mr. Trump’s assertions, Jason Miller, his communications director, cited two studies that he said offered examples of voter fraud: a 2014 Washington Post study on noncitizen voting and a 2012 Pew study on the poor state of voter registration files.

    The NEw York Timws claims the Post’s Monkey Cage blog article (which dealt just with non-citizen voting) was debunked. What they cite isn’t clear, but basically they say the 6.4% figure is derived 100% from survey error.

    The rebuttal is a little bit careless and written too quickly, but still indicates the figure of millions and the claim that if illegal votes were deducted Trump would have won the popular vote has no source. The New York Times called it baseless. It wasn’t baseless. It was just unsupported, not even with something that you could use to extrapolate that number.

    What they don’t want to say is there is some amount of illegal voting.

    This is the source for the claim of debunking:

    http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cces/news/perils-cherry-picking-low-frequency-events-large-sample-surveys

    Neither that source, nor the New York Times article. describes the survey methodology clearly (maybe they don’t know it) but it would seem the sample was supposed to consist only of U.S. citizens, and while the sample was carried over from one election year to another, no one reported being a non-citizen and voting in both 2010 and 2012.

    The New York Times further states that if the 6.4% figure were true, it would not account for the margin (that is, even if every single one of them voted for Hillary Clinton.)

    The other (Pew) study involves people still registered who had moved or died, but had no figures or estimate for voting, but the NYT writers assumed it to be low, and I think it is generally thought to be low. You could add that the votes would not all be cast the same way.

    In California, there was no greater turnout than in 2012, so if there was any fraud, it was baked in now, and not motivated by Trummp. The extra margin for Hillary over 2012 came from Republican leaning areas where downballot Republicans were voted for.

    There would have been no incentive for Democrats to inflate the popular vote margin in California – maybe not so in Nevada, but that woudn’t cause Trump to lose the popular vote.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  32. Cyborg candidate decries “fake news”… http://ace.mu.nu/archives/367273.php

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  33. take Carly Fiorina’s claim that she went from secretary to CEO: admitted by the fact-checkers to be true, but deemed false by the fact-checkers because of its implications.

    The implication of that claim is that it was all at the same company.

    If it means not at the same company, it’s a trivial fact, as any CEO, except maybe Donald Trump, who started work at his father’s company, held a rather low level job at first, and even he did.

    Sammy Finkelman (4151a0)

  34. Comrade Patterico, when Hillary talks of shutting down “fake news” she’s talking about you and other outlets contradicting the approved news sources.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  35. An example of fake news that decided an election:

    Cathy Crowley’s agreement during the last debate that Barack Obama had blamed the Benghazi attack on terrorists, not on some movie as Romney (and the rest of the attention-paying world) knew. In actuial fact he gave a long and rambling speed that finally ended with a generic anti-terror platitude. Why did she remember this in the way she did? Because an Obama staff member “happened” to bring it up in conversation the previous week.

    It was “mostly false” and cost Romney dearly.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  36. *speech

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  37. OT: I would be happy to pony up a few dollars to buy Patterico an edit button. Anyone else?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  38. My HS logic class of 30 years ago pointed out all news was slanted. And one needed to work to read between the lines. Most often by subscribing to opposing view points.

    jd2 (47d6c6)

  39. Would someone list the fake news that got Trump elected? Apparently it was all on Facebook so I missed it.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0898 secs.