Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Tom Watson wants to give 'fake news' outlets a jolly good whipping.

Agreed. Who defines what is or isn't fake? Using what criteria and in whose interest? Watson's just announced a Labour Party inquiry to be run by Michael Dugher. The Committee of Culture, Media and Sport have started one as well.

This is my biggest concern.

The best way to combat 'fake news' is to ensure everyone gets a damn good education and we teach robust critical thinking skills with a side order of media literacy. But of course, that would require a) an overhaul of the education system, and b) the government trusting the public with the ability to parse bullshit.

Obviously neither is in the interests of capitalism.

So what we appear to be getting is a series of officially sanctioned investigations into what constitutes state-approved fact and what doesn't.
 
Fake news is a good term for what it is. There have been examples recently of trumps spokesperson referring to a terrorist attack that never happened, while the anti trump media at times indulges in wild speculation about his "supposed" intentions, which leads to a growing atmosphere of tension. I saw an interview a few days ago with McCain on CNN where the presenter was speaking about how trump was going to start to censor the media, curb democracy and start on the path to becoming america's first dictator. A tweet was mentioned as evidence of this and when I checked no such tweet existed.

A report on fox news about sweden clearly had edited the answer from an immigrant about whether a certain neighbourhood was a no go area. He is asked the question, there is a clear edited jump in the footage, and he answers in the positive (probalby the answer to a different question got grafted on). Fake news.

A recent Guardian article which uncovered that an immigrant rape case this last new years eve was faked by the supposed victims, tried to insinuate that Cologne last year was also therefore fake, which in turn again is fake news which tries to cover up.

In fact, without mentioning the daily mail, the Guardian and the independent's coverage of many things now is extremely iffy. They go on and on about brexit as though it were cancer and rarely give voice to the people who voted for it in the referendum. Their voice is rarley heard, there is no balance. thus, the lie that the majority didn't support it, is maintained alive.

People without degrees, the vast majority of people in britian, have no voice either. They only appear in the news if they do something violent.
 
This is my biggest concern.

The best way to combat 'fake news' is to ensure everyone gets a damn good education and we teach robust critical thinking skills with a side order of media literacy. But of course, that would require a) an overhaul of the education system, and b) the government trusting the public with the ability to parse bullshit.

I would dare to add a C. That people reflect on the potential damage being caused by cultural tyranny that blocks open debate, within the progressive camp, itself.
 
This is my biggest concern.

The best way to combat 'fake news' is to ensure everyone gets a damn good education and we teach robust critical thinking skills with a side order of media literacy. But of course, that would require a) an overhaul of the education system, and b) the government trusting the public with the ability to parse bullshit.

Totally agree. But I've been wondering if maybe young people - I mean people who grew up with the internet, and selfie filters and airbrushed images and CGI etc - are better at this, having a healthy scepticism about everything they see and read, compared to old farts like me who grew up back when you had to read a book to find out about a subject, or go to an apparently undisputed tome like the encyclopedia.
 
Last edited:
Totally agree. But I've been wondering if maybe young people - I mean people who grew up with the internet, and selfie filters and airbrushed images and CGI etc - are better at this, having a healthy scepticism about everything they see and read, compared to old farts like me who grew up back when you had to read a book to find out about a subject, or go to an apparently undisputed tome like the encyclopedia.

I don't know. This alt-right business has had a very healthy dose of help from young men whose lives are on the internet, for example.

I suppose there's a difference between those who fall for the lies - for whatever reason - and those who probably know it's propaganda and smears and otherwise bullshit and don't care because it's a means to an end. That end is sometimes revenge, hurt, spite, or gaining a feeling of power.

I expect you have to think carefully about the difference between those who spread it knowingly, those who believe it unknowingly, and those somewhere in between.
 
Back
Top Bottom