TheDecameron
Unicorns fart glitter.
Or drive.Yeah; they didn't allow women to vote, for a kick-off.
Or drive.Yeah; they didn't allow women to vote, for a kick-off.
That looks like a good idea, though it would have to be done with great care. The main problem with the BBC news and current affairs programming at present is a crazy implementation of ‘equivalence’ where they platform factually incorrect bullshit or reactionary opinion from ‘both sides’ rather than just reporting events and applying real evidence-based critical scrutiny (e.g. properly fact-checking all claims made and publicly outing the liars and con-artists).
“Democratisation” can be a very dangerous thing if it gives equal weight to idiots and experts alike.
But how do you critically scrutinise something without giving it a platform in the first place?
Well in that case democracy IS a very dangerous thing!
The committee report's definition of "fake news" is a bit broad for my liking:You seem to be falling into the binary mindset of having to support one option and decry the alternative. It is possible to be highly skeptical of influences in the mainstream and still be horrified by the traction everything from Vote Leave through to Yaxley-Lennon, Britain First etc are gaining of late through highly organised internet misinformation campaigns. None of this need impact the likes of Momentum, AAV etc, who it is clear you defend, as long as their content is entirely truthful and stands up to basic legal scrutiny. To my mind any political advertising needs to be factual, honest, and very clear as to who has funded in and in whose interest.
The only logical option IMHO is to force accountability and make it possible to sue political organisations for lies, false-promises, misinformation etc just the way you can sue a bank, financial adviser, insurance company, car manufacturer etc. Given how corrupt our politics I’d like to see it be possible to sue financial backers too, e.g. UKIP or Leave.EU’s bare-faced lies, misinformation and data mining chicanery should be underwritten by the likes of Arron Banks etc who funded it.
1. Fabricated content: completely false content;
2. Manipulated content: distortion of genuine information or imagery, for example a headline that is made more sensationalist, often popularised by ‘clickbait’;
3. Imposter content: impersonation of genuine sources, for example by using the branding of an established news agency;
4. Misleading content: misleading use of information, for example by presenting comment as fact;
5. False context of connection: factually accurate content that is shared with false contextual information, for example when a headline of an article does not reflect the content;
6. Satire and parody: presenting humorous but false stores as if they are true. Although not usually categorised as fake news, this may unintentionally fool readers.
Nearly:Wasn't it Labour who specifically targeted Corbyn and his staff with ads he thought were going to out to everyone while they actually sent out ads slagging him off.
The problem isn’t so much that we give a platform to the idiots, it’s that we’ve become so cynical about the credibility of experts, to the extent that many now automatically discount expert views that conflict with their own own prejudices.
Don't you just love the "moderate", "pragmatic" wing of the Labour Party?
I'm beginning to think that, rather than persuading people to vote differently (ie turn Remainers to Leavers), the social media campaigns might just have been successful at getting habitual non-voters out to participate.Seems quite accurate to me. It is blindingly obvious the whole Vote Leave campaign was based on blatant misinformation and xenophobic spin. It was almost entirely false advertising. You could never advertise any commercial product in such a way without ending up in court.
Those who spout Russia Today
What I’d like to see in its place is proper national political accountability, i.e. if a political party, affiliated pressure group or dodgy paid data mining company produces lies to sell a political party, side in a referendum or whatever then they, or whoever funded them, can be sued for false advertising the way an insurance company or bank would be.
Because they're part of the Regime Change TV Network.BBC america keeps bringing back the same former-bush-administration people or chaps from the heritage foundation to comment expertly on things, night after night.
we have RT america and BBC america over here. the former is, without a doubt, far more objective and intelligent. BBC america keeps bringing back the same former-bush-administration people or chaps from the heritage foundation to comment expertly on things, night after night.