No. There is something called truth. Did it rain yesterday or did it not? What was the temperature last week? These are things that are scientifically true or not true and yet over the last election cycle these facts were up for "debate". I don't mean climate change. They argued about whether it was hot or cold on a specific day at a specific place.
The weather is easy. Where the grey areas start are with things like budgets. Did a particular department spend more or less this year that last? Such statements would seem objectively true or untrue yet we saw grown men and women fight for years, one side seeing surplus and the other deficit. In the middle is an accountant who knows the objective truth, the real story from the fake news. When the accountant comes forward, that story is then slotted into real or fake. If there are never any objectively true or untrue facts, why do we even bother talking?
Let's say I'm reporting on a study that sets out to see if there is wage discrimination against earthling immigrants in favor of native martians. The study shows that earthlings earn more than martians on average, but once you control for occupation and education and all that, earthlings actually make less for doing the same thing.
It's true to report that earthlings tend to earn more than martians. I could use that fact from the study to form the basis of a totally factual story that goes completely against the study itself. My readers will come away thinking discrimination happens in earthlings' favor instead of against them. Totally true facts can support a totally false conclusion, depending on presentation.
There are two different kinds of fake news. The first type is just shitty journalism. Stuff that isn't fact checked, doesn't tell the whole story, actively misleads, or what not. Thats the kind that has a spectrum. The second type is "Clinton ate an alien baby yesterday then died." That kind is kinda binary. It seems like facebook can't even tell the difference between those.
Or some "news" organizations will quote another story from another news organization to lend credibility to the original unchecked shitty journalism. Rinse and repeat.
No, fake news is not shitty journalism. Fake news is stuff that the writer and editor knew were made up and wrong when they posted it. There's a difference between not particularly caring about the veracity of what you repeat and just making shit up.
No. There is something called truth. Did it rain yesterday or did it not? What was the temperature last week? These are things that are scientifically true or not true and yet over the last election cycle these facts were up for "debate". I don't mean climate change. They argued about whether it was hot or cold on a specific day at a specific place.
The weather is easy. Where the grey areas start are with things like budgets. Did a particular department spend more or less this year that last? Such statements would seem objectively true or untrue yet we saw grown men and women fight for years, one side seeing surplus and the other deficit. In the middle is an accountant who knows the objective truth, the real story from the fake news. When the accountant comes forward, that story is then slotted into real or fake. If there are never any objectively true or untrue facts, why do we even bother talking?