[atmosx]

> It would be interesting to know how the spread of this misinformation differs from other types of regular news.

That is the root of the problem: It does NOT[1]. Lying[2] is the core business of most respected media outlets.

[1] The Deep State Goes to War With President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer: https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the-deep-state-goes-to-w...

[2] A lie doesn't have to preposterous, e.g. "the Pope is routing for Trump!". Distorting reality, not revealing facts, etc. are all lies in the sense that the author in order to drive a point, actively distorts/hides/ignores facts. We're not talking regular people, we're talking professional journalists who are taught how to cover and approach a subject to minimise distortion effects.

[pg314]

> That is the root of the problem: It does NOT[1].

Yes it does. There is a difference between saying there is an unverified report alleging kompromat on Trump and saying the pope supported Trump. The latter is categorically false, the former is simply a fact. Any critical reader can understand, just by reading the article, that the former are allegations which have not been verified. No such thing is possible with the latter without referring to other sources. Equating both is just muddling the discussion.

> Lying[2] is the core business of most respected media outlets.

You provide no justification for this bold statement. Just some hand-waving about distorting reality and hiding facts.

By trying to spread this misinformation you are - possibly unwittingly - playing into the hand of those who would prefer the free, independent press to disappear.

[atmosx]

> Any critical reader can understand, just by reading the article, that the former are allegations which have not been verified.

So let me get this straight: The critical reader should understand that the Washington Post, the US gov, the Economist, Bill Maher[1] (political satirist on HBO) and MANY others, have taken an allegation and build-up an entire case as if it were true BUT somehow when fake news are pro-Trump the critical reader's IQ falls bellow temperature level and he doesn't understand that it's extremely unlikely that the Pope would actively routes towards one candidate over another, for whatever reason? I'm sorry, I'm having hard making sense.

> You provide no justification for this bold statement. Just some hand-waving about distorting reality and hiding facts. By trying to spread this misinformation you are - possibly unwittingly - playing into the hand of those who would prefer the free, independent press to disappear.

Did you read the linked article? Here's the summary:

THERE IS A real danger here that this maneuver could harshly backfire, to the great benefit of Trump and to the great detriment of those who want to oppose him. If any of the significant claims in this “dossier” turn out to be provably false — such as Cohen’s trip to Prague — many people will conclude, with Trump’s encouragement, that large media outlets (CNN and BuzzFeed) and anti-Trump factions inside the government (CIA) are deploying “Fake News” to destroy him. In the eyes of many people, that will forever discredit — render impotent — future journalistic exposés that are based on actual, corroborated wrongdoing.

Respect for free media, yes, absolute respect. Respect for propaganda or fake news from either side? No.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmIS1y0cUv0

[pg314]

Bill Maher is not news. If you treat him as such and lump him in with the WaPo or The Economist, I don't think we can have a constructive discussion.

The articles about the Trump dossier in the WaPo, NYT, The Economist, CNN all came with explicit disclaimers that the contents from the Trump dossier came from unverified sources, and should be treated as such. I don't know how else they could have presented it. If that falls in the same category for you as an article stating unequivocally that the pope has endorsed Trump, again, I don't think we can have a constructive discussion.

I agree that some of the Democrats treating the dossier as proven facts is dumb and will probably backfire.