Won't work, won't even come close to working. It's premised on the idea that true and false are easily identifiable, and quite frankly they aren't
I disagree. Objective events that happen are identifiable. This pretense that they can’t is a false premise perpetrated by those who are intentionally trying to manipulate.
When was the last time the media reported on objective events without coloring them? The entirety of cable news is nothing but a slant on events, literally every tv news show (beyond the local news, and sometimes even then) is an exercise in trying to guide your thinking. Every election of what they choose to cover and what they choose not to cover is exercise in slant.
Do they cover every town hall? Or just the ones where a protester from a favored cause has gone to stage a rant?
I watched CBS this morning. They choose to cover the what of Trump's plan on immigration (to enforce more of the existing laws than Obama did, but still less than all) as if it were an aggressive assault on freedom. Not one mention of "undocumented" let alone "illegal" aliens. Focused completely on their arguments that, following our actual laws, will make us "unsafe," break up families (nothing prohibits families from leaving the country together), and cost Billions of dollars.
Is anything they said objectively false? Pretty obvious though that it's slanted. You might see it better, if they'd chosen to focus on crime statistics or the high profile cases where immigrants murdered people, if they had elected to focus on safety, or the inherent justice in following the actual laws. Or maybe if they elected to focus on how immigration enforcement is favored by the vast majority of the electorate.
This idea that ‘the media’ in all of its permutations could as a global conspiracy be working together for some end… would be an accomplishment I cannot imagine.
Why would they need a conspiracy? Do college professors need to be engaged in a conspiracy to present a uniformly leftist worldview? The press absolutely lacks a real diversity of worldviews, that translates directly into how they choose to present the news, even if they'd like to do otherwise they can not do so, because their own bias leaves them unable to believe that the other side's positions could be true. They find themselves believing sources that agree with themselves far more readily than those that disagree, this really comes into play during the falsification process - they aggressively attempt to falsify the "oppositions" positions, and even strain and over attribute minor faults to imply they color the whole position, while finding themselves defending rather than falsifying positions they find agreeable, or just never even bothering to try to falsify them because they are "obvious."
Of course, that's before the last election cycle. In the last election cycle, members of the press actively promoted abandoning objectivity. They were so lost in their opinions that they decided it was their job to be activists and report on the "lies" (as they saw them), notwithstanding that they have no objectivity on those matters.
This tactic of undermining objective fact is another tool of those who wish to manipulate facts.
True. Too bad you miss it when it really happens.
Note how when those that talk about ‘fake news’ in with a sweeping brush seldom identify the stories in which they suspect are fake.
I have noticed that you seldom identify stories that are "fake" and never actually take the next step to explain them. Is that what you mean?
For example: The leaks are real but what the leaks reveal and or put into question is not real. (so should not be reported on)
Pretty sure leaks are real (both sides seem to agree, Hillary's campaign, Donald's Whitehouse). Substance can also be real, Podesta's emails sure did turn out to be so. The Whitehouse leaks are more difficult to verify since they seem to take the form of "a highly placed source has informed us" of difficult to disprove but damaging statement.
Cherry mention “mass rape of German women in public by hundreds of immigrant” as being an example of under-reported events, a covered up, and even global conspiracy. Yet a quick search reveals that that is not the case.
Others have better covered this. The outcry is of the routine suppression that occurs. We have examples a plenty in the US as well. Race based attacks where a white person attacks a black person are more broadly covered than race based attacks where a black person attacks a white person. Why would that be? Initial news stories of active shooters where the suspects have Arabic names are generally very slow to identify them and even slower to link it to Islam, yet active shooters where there is even the vaguest suspicion of a conservative motivation jump to label it as such, and retractions are very slow even when it turns out the shooter is from the left (e.g., Jared Loughner).
This seems to be a failure in ability to determine a difference between the objective happening and speculation about what happened and how it was reported. I can’t but wonder if Cherry issue was not that the event was under-reported but that the response to the reporting did not create the hysteria that would help achieve/manipulate his own moment’s agenda.
You can't help wonder that? You seem to be able to help from wondering if the actual statistics and details were not reported to specifically suppress sentiment that would interfere with your own moment's agenda.
It’s interesting, when my brother in-law talks about the agenda of the ‘media’ he refuses to accept that he also has an agenda in doing so… In his mind he is right and that being right there can be no agenda.
And there, without realizing it, you identified the problem, you just made the common mistake of believe it applies just to other people. My basic rule of thumb on arguing an issue is if you don't understand why the other side is right (not why they believe they are right) you really don't understand it well enough to have a firm opinion about why they are wrong.
