[Communitivity]

And here we go.. Funfortunately, most of the misinformation I hear is presented as entertainment. I am fine with it, if like SNL it is clearly labelled as satire, and not done as if it was news (as one network it seems to me often does). Sadly, there are many who watch that network, and shows like its shows, who believe what they are hearing to be the gospel truth. This is to the point of a man arming himself with an assault rifle (another problem, but I won't digress more than that) and shooting up an innocent pizza parlor that the entertainment show in question accused of some of the most heinous crimes in our judicial system.

We put labels at the bottom of cigarettes to warn people. Why can't we put a header at the bottom of such programs: "Satire, Not News, Not Factual".

Btw, I would love to see that banner on the bottom of The Daily Show as much as I would on The Rush Limbaugh Show, as both sides of the Red/Blue divide are guilty of this to some extent.

[ilikehurdles]

There has been an explosion in "the onion"-like fake news sources that say they're satire somewhere on the site, yet by reading the article without that context one would have no way of knowing unless they fact-check. The articles have very little, if any, of the kind of humor that defines satire. They usually publish fictional pro-GOP headlines that are often shared on social media with strong reactions from uninformed commenters.

Not flagging these articles with an appropriate label pretty much ensures that this whole facebook-based fact checking feature is nothing more than a vaporware PR campaign.

[Bartweiss]

The most aggravating thing is that this should be a trivial fix!

If certain sources are being excluded from the system, mark them as such. It doesn't have to be a value judgement or dismissal. Just tagging "opinion or satire, not fact-checked" would be a huge step up. Beyond any topical debate, it's general good practice to make that sort of distinction. "Evaluated, nothing found" and "not evaluated" are fundamentally different: one is false, the other is null. Failing to distinguish them is either a serious oversight or an intentional weakening of an evaluation system.

[metalliqaz]

I can't believe you pulled a "both sides" line comparing The Daily Show and The Rush Limbaugh Show. This is not apples to apples.

Perhaps Rush's (or to use a more current example, Tucker Carlson's) viewers are so twisted that they no longer recognize what a comedy show is. That doesn't mean we become just as unreasonable as they are. It's not The Onion's fault when someone "eats the onion".

[forgottenpass]

Aren't people who watch the Daily Show under the false impression that the setups for punchlines are real news? Why would anyone knowingly watch them butcher the news just to make the punchlines work?

Watching the Daily Show when you follow the news is like watching an observational stand-up focus on weird contradictions in everyday life when you already know the un-intuitive aspects of the matter that cause the discrepancy they're riffing on. Except a bit more depressing, because it means either their writers are bad news consumers, or are just changing shit to be more convenient to their joke structure.

[charwalker]

Fun part is the Daily Show still runs segments that get next to zero airtime on Fox or are put out with enough lies and disinformation to question my own sanity.

[tru3_power]

Doesn’t the responsibility ultimately lay on consumer of said entertainment to ascertain this? Seems like the bigger problem we’re facing here is a mental health problem.

[Bartweiss]

I'd find that more reasonable if Facebook said "we're not fact-checking anything, work it out yourselves", or tagged these articles as "exempted from fact-checking". Offering to flag false stories creates an expectation which is violated when you fail to distinguish "true" from "unchecked".

Separately I don't think we should equate mental health with mental hygiene here. Mental health might make the difference between "believing untrue things" and "showing up somewhere with a gun and no particular plan", but it's hardly a precondition for accepting wildly improbable and untrue claims.

[rabidrat]

What's your solution to that "mental health" problem? More education? Smart pills? Inpatient counseling?

I'm all for personal responsibility, but particularly when unwitting consumption can have society-wide negative effects, the responsibility lays on society to take steps to mitigate the consumption and damage.

[ummonk]

I assume the "one network" you're referring to is Fox News and not MSNBC? Because both seem to be guilty of this.

[charwalker]

One was created to prevent a second Nixon and birthed and covers for the Trump presidency, now under impeachment on many many counts of clearly illegal and unethical behavior. The other has a series of awarded reporters and does not run baseless opinion shows half the day.

There may be some overlap, but the comparison is mountain vs molehill level unfair.