Seeing multiple sources pop up online is not a good sign that a story is credible. The misinformation specialists know how to fake it…
How we've recreated the channels of the past in the social media of today.
Much of the blame for the spread of “fake news” can be placed squarely at the feet of the general public, far too few of whom actually apply critical thinking to the things they share on social media. And agreeing with the sentiment is no excuse for sharing something fake – that’s just cognitive bias at work:
But I agree with the sentiment, so it’s OK to share NO. NO. NO. That’s not good enough any more. Maybe that was OK back in the innocent noughties, but if you’re willing to reflexively share this without engaging your critical thinking, then I’ll bet that you’re willing to share more serious bullshit memes without thinking them through.
There’s a kind of arrogant paternalism in thinking that we can “save” people from “fake news”, without this central problem being addressed.
Facebook has killed the lifeline that supports many Macedonian fake news sites.
The media darling of the alt-right has developed the nickname "Cuckbart" - how has it lost the affection of its reader base?
Yet again, people are rapidly spreading fake news around a major tragedy.
Techmeme doesn't just rank the news - it connects it. And that's something we've stopped trying to do.
A panel of journalism experts debated the rise of fake news and the way our culture should respond at a panel at City University, London. Here are some liveblogged notes.
First Draft's Claire Wardle has been picking at the roots of "fake news" - and the reasons that's a bad label.
Partisan reporting (or even *gasp* blogging) isn't the problem - it's outright propaganda. This isn't about professional status, but relationship with reality.