13.10.2014

So, let's collect in one post all the bloopers of our highly respected, honest and independent media.

It is clear that this post will focus on the Russian media. Only the Russian media fuck us in such a way that it is hard to believe that you can fuck with such confidence. As you know, the Ukrainian media are also good. But they don't juggle cards. They can verbally embellish something, understate, etc. But what they don't do is they don't Photoshop the reports. This is the lot of RTR and Channel One.

Of course, finding all the fakes is an unrealistic task. But let's look at at least what we have now. I would like to start our review from our first disclosure, which you may already have come across on the pages of NoNews. So, the Ukrainian fascists are going to beat Dambaz.

But kremlebots throw in pictures from Israel, which is fired by Hamas, and pass it off as Luhansk. Even on the ground it is clear that this is not Ukraine. This photo was also published by the BBC, but we were fucking trying to find the original.

And then, it means that the Russian media discovered the American BlackWater mercenaries in the east of Ukraine. The photo of these guys was taken in New Orleans. To remind, the Russian Foreign Ministry has considered New Orleans a part of Ukraine since the publication of this material.

Here some bot tells that the Ukrainian PUNISHERS (sounds like a formidable, but) killed a girl in Slavyansk. Previously, a photo of this girl has already appeared on the Web. In fact, she died a year earlier in Crimea.

There is even such a thing. It turns out that Poroshenko is an agent of the US State Department. Naturally, no one gives any proof links to WikiLeaks. The fact that the president of Ukraine is an agent of America, the media must be taken at their word.

But photography is not a fake. This will not be shown in the Russian media. We have here patriots of Russia, they are for Mother Russia and against the Bandera saloids. And, well, even against the Nazis - as without it.

And some chmyrdai published this, I don't even know that. If last times fake pictures were taken from other years at least, this time the picture is fresh. The first photo shows a type of murdered girl in Ukraine. The second photo shows a previously published photograph of a girl killed in Syria.

Here, the dead girl in Ussuriysk is passed off by the Kremlin bedding as the one killed by anti-terrorist operation.

And here we have US propaganda against honest workers in the Russian media. They (USA) returned in 1995 and published this photo under the guise of Chechen. The sworn capitalists are doing everything in order to defile the purest conscience of Russo / Donbasso-media.

And here we have a statement from Ladimr Ladimrych. Almost nothing.

Let me not comment on this photo, take a break from sarcasm.

Remember how everyone used to say in the summer that after Crimea became Russian, everything there got worse, and there are a lot of tourists, and life is better. Photos were published with clogged beaches of past years.


Those who showed at least a little desire to check this information could quickly become convinced that this was not the case. In Crimea, they used to work (and work now) online webcams, on which you can always see what is happening in 10 cities of the peninsula. A bunch of frames, here is one, I think it is enough.

But somewhere I found a comparative photo. Sobsno explain it. Written as it is. The inauguration was in Russian.

Here - see the date.

Man Vadim knows better than Wikipedia what a real Bandera looks like.

In the vatniki group (in Odnoklassniki), another fiction is being spread. This picture was taken on February 3, 2007 in the German city of Ludwigshafen during a fire in a residential building. The kid was thrown out of the window and caught by a local policeman.

The NTV channel reported that in Rome, several hundred supporters of Russia rallied against the distortion of information about the situation in Ukraine by the European media. However, these students are protesting against the cuts in social programs. In Russia, this is probably considered the same thing.

In one of its reports, Channel Russia 1 used a video from YouTube. The "cap" of the video is esessno, they did not fit into the frame.

Photo of a Ukrainian helicopter taken in Cote d'Ivoire. How the Ukrainian plane got there - ask the RIA editorial office.

Slavyansk, we recall, has recently been considered Uganda.

Kolomoisky's punishers punished the mothers of the punishers who punish the Russians in eastern Ukraine. Fucked up already.

You didn't think this review would be complete without LifeNews, did you?

Just look at the comments on this photo in the contact.

Oh, here's more about Crimea.

Well, this, of course, is an enchanting shit. The video can be found on YouTube without any problems.

Russian propaganda also cannot live without gays.

Another fantasy.

And one more fantasy.

Mexico, if anything, is also a part of Ukraine.

Reports from Mr Strelkov.

You just need to compare the dates.

Save Darbmaz Peapl!

Found in contact.

Russia is rich in talent. True, the aunt plays very convincingly.

He also took the contact.

An actress from the same theater.

Contact again.

According to the source of information, one can immediately see what will happen right now.

The contact exposes again.

Look like that's it. Something like this.

World Economic Forum, Switzerland
© World Economic Forum

Fake news versus real politics

Zeynab Badawi: Welcome to the World Economic Forum in Davos. We are discussing falsity. Today, this is a buzzword on everyone's lips, since in the current Internet era, the phenomenon it denotes has acquired particular importance. Let me introduce you the participants in our discussion.

So Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia. The main goal of his latest project, WikiTribune, is to combat fake news. Joseph Kahn is the leading editor of The New York Times, which has skyrocketed in circulation since its founding in 1851 and has won over 120 Pulitzer Prizes for its journalistic work. Anna Belkina is deputy editor-in-chief of RT, the Kremlin-backed television network officially known as Russia Today. Bilawal Zardari, chairman of the Pakistani People's Party, is the son of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated ten years ago.

Let's welcome our experts. And, of course, those who listen to us and watch us all over the world: on TV, on the radio and online.

I asked my colleagues at Click, a program that talks about the latest technology on (BBC), to give an overview of what fake news is and how it gets more sophisticated every time.

Video

Fake news. Today everyone uses this term. And it is no coincidence. While President Trump may have contributed to getting the term into the dictionary, the rest of the world is struggling to separate fact from fiction.

Headline: "Ministers of the Liberal Church who sheltered Muslim refugees were horrified at what they found on the pews." This news is fake. Jutta Kramm, editor-in-chief of CORRECT! V, a vetting organization: "The headline was: This is what Islamic society looks like, and we are moving towards it."

And this is a fake (on the screen - a post in social networks, Germany). “They were incredible, blood-curdling videos ...” (India). Also fake.

The problem is that today everything seems to fall under this concept, from real lies to what you disagree with. So how do you separate fact from fiction, opinion from satire, and highly misleading and misleading headlines? Giants such as Facebook, Twitter or Google have been wrestling with this problem for a year now. But do they have what it takes to fight in a world ruled by likes, clicks, and attention grabbing devices? Perhaps one of the reasons why it is so difficult to stop this flood of false information is that there is a lot of money behind the creation of fake news.

Mile Grncarov (former creator of fake news): “I've been doing this for several years. Then I was still very young. A lot of fake news is written by ordinary people. They sit at their computers, learning a simple formula: a scandalous headline plus false information equals profit. Once upon a time, even thirteen-year-olds could do this. ”

One thing is certain: fake news is much easier to fabricate and spread than it is to detect and expose. I admit that the problem may get worse in the near future. It is possible that soon new technologies will make us doubt not only the authenticity of what we read, but also everything that we see and hear. Our faces can be stolen, our voices can be imitated. Reality has never seemed so ghostly. Technology validators are working to identify and list fake news, researchers and policymakers are beginning to examine their impact, and we are all beginning to grasp the extent of their power.

Theresa May: “By employing state-controlled media, Russia seeks to use information as a tool to spread fake stories and photoshopped images in an attempt to divide the West and undermine our institutions.”

Is it too late or is this just the beginning of an arms race for high-tech fake news?

— A quick question for all of you. How useful is the term "fake news"? Joseph Kahn?

Joseph Kahn: This term is useful in the sense that your video indicates. The phenomenon of false information, deliberately created for not very good political or economic purposes, is an urgent and very serious threat, especially when information is so widely used on various technological platforms. I would say that today we are more aware of the need to combat the existing false news.

— We will come back to this topic later. Bilawal, do you think fake news is a good term for a comprehensive formula?

Bilawal Zardari: Not sure. Because I understand, and it is obvious that false information, propaganda, disinformation have long been components of the information war. Fake news has only recently become known in the context of the American elections, as we saw in this video. When politicians use the term as a catch-all phrase to hide behind it political manipulation and what they dislike, then its meaning becomes even more vague. This is the main question of our discussion about the usefulness of this term.

— Anna Belkina?

Anna Belkina: In my opinion, this term is extremely dangerous because it confuses the debate and public discourse about the accuracy and factual reliability of information. In addition, as we can see, false news becomes a weapon in the hands of public figures, as well as media organizations, a way to silence dissidents, a way to avoid responding to any criticism, and in the final sense, this exacerbates the real problem that we are trying to solve here.

— Good. Jimmy Wales, it turns out that we call fake news and fabricated information, and just the kind of news that people don't like?

Jimmy Wales: Yes, I do think this is a problem. This is a surprise to me, but here I agree with Anna. True, to this we must add that we should separate fake news, invented by teenagers, and the like, and actual propaganda in the spirit of RT. Confusing the two is actually a big mistake.

— Joe Kahn from, you personally received the fake news award that your newspaper deserves from the White House perspective. And you know: all this is treated as a joke, for people it is another reason to laugh. Is this really a joke?

Joseph Kahn: President Trump's definition of fake news presents a real problem: his accusations of spreading fake news are fake news in themselves. The problem with false news is not journalism, which sometimes makes mistakes in the reporting and writing process and then corrects them properly. Good journalistic organizations are always ready to admit their mistakes. All the awards that the president awarded to “fake media” ended up in the hands of media organizations that made factual mistakes and corrected them. For me, this is an indicator of good journalistic practice. To call it fake news is to purposely defame journalism, that is, to use the term, as the video said, as a tool to try ...

"Do you wear some sort of badge of honor now?" Like, I have a White House award for fake news.

Joseph Kahn: Why not? I don't mind getting another one.

“Bilawal, that's just one side of the fake news. In fact, in your part of the world, where fake news spreads on WhatsApp or some other media, it can have more dangerous consequences.

Bilawal Zardari: I think they can have dangerous consequences anywhere. I believe that what has been said here in connection with President Trump is causing the greatest concern and danger. Not because the prize he instituted is ridiculous in itself. The fact is that in this way the leader of a democratic country exposed the press in the most unattractive way. This is my opinion. Since in our country, political parties fought for democracy, and it has not yet fully strengthened, I am concerned about the use of this term by politicians: in this way they slander the press - and, on the other hand ...

Is the same thing happening in Pakistan? Who is hiding behind the fake news?

Bilawal Zardari: I will not name these politicians, but attacks and denigration of the media, the constant repetition of the words "fake", "invention" on a massive scale - that's what is happening.

- Who else is behind this in Pakistan?

Bilawal Zardari: As with any other place, there is no definitive answer to this question. Yes, politicians are behind this. The media in my country, as well as in other parts of the developing world, is much more profit-oriented, it reflects the interests of big business, which are not limited as is the case in the UK, where you cannot own a television station or newspapers. They pursue their own commercial interests. Therefore, non-traditional platforms can serve as a source of quite reliable news.

- In general, a lot of participants are involved in the game. Jimmy, Wikipedia is definitely part of the digital explosion. But you, how to put it more delicately, are also part of the problem of fake news, because there are quite a lot of inaccuracies on Wikipedia.

Jimmy Wales: Of course, there are many inaccuracies in everything. But what's important is that we at Wikipedia are doing our best to fix them. We have very high standards for source reliability. We have a very open policy of correcting any errors that come to us. Of course, serious research, serious journalism means that mistakes can happen from time to time. But the key point here is that you just have to try to fix them. This is the main principle.

- And no malice.

Jimmy Wales: This is really important. And, you know, many of the problems with fake news, when, for example, spread on social networks and so on, do not concern Wikipedia, because our community is very responsible in evaluating sources. And so when we see fake news coming from teenagers in Macedonia, or something like that, our experts immediately determine: well, this is not a real newspaper, I have never heard of it. They will double-check everything and will never admit such information to Wikipedia ...

- Anna Belkina, in our short video we heard Teresa May accusing Russia of using information as a weapon. And, as you know, RT receives a lot of accusations from a variety of sources. I know you will say that this is not the case, but you know that NATO, French President Macron, Theresa May, the German government, the American government - everyone says that Russia, as a state entity, is involved in creating fake news and uses stations for this like RT.

Anna Belkina: These accusations - and I will speak directly about RT, because many of them were addressed specifically to us - these accusations are false, they are, no doubt, false. I'm glad you mentioned President Macron's statements. In fact, during the presidential campaign, RT was targeted for spreading false information.

- That is, you accuse President Macron of spreading false information about RT.

Anna Belkina: Employees of his election campaign repeatedly stated that RT was spreading false information about their candidate. However, throughout the campaign and after its end, they were unable to provide a single example of this kind of news story.

- I know that you will call it a falsification, but such statements come from many places, for example, from NATO. NATO claims there has been a significant increase in Russian propaganda and disinformation since 2014. Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg exposes Russian fake news agencies. In fact, I can list many more examples.

Anna Belkina: But this is partly the problem - that we collide different concepts. Terms such as propaganda, false information, disinformation are much more subjective and vague than fake news. And they are used by people to refute and discredit any contrary to their position, inconvenient opinions or even just facts, any kind of messages. But when a presidential candidate or his team consistently and unsubstantiated make such accusations of falsifying the news and, you know, all the American and leading Western media are happy to point out any statement ...

- The evidence was provided by the special services of Germany and France.

Anna Belkina: We criticize President Trump's statements in various ways, and at the same time we do not try to understand the accusations from President Macron. In fact, only one, one single media outlet called for questioning Macron's campaign - that was the agency (Reuters). And they did not receive a single example of false information provided by RT.

- Jimmy Wales, are you happy with what you just heard? This irreconcilability and categorical denial?

Jimmy Wales: We have testimonies from many different places. For example, Columbia University School of Journalism has a team of graduate students who are working on the RT Watch project. And they found many examples of completely misinterpreting events, false reports, bogus experts, outright lies. Just unbelieveble. This question should not even be considered open. And I also think it's very important to understand that serious people don't usually talk: fake news is news that I disagree with, it is not about suppressing those who express the opposite point of view. After all (The Wall Street Journal) and The New York Times don't call each other fake news every time they disagree on something. These are the basic standards of journalism.

Joseph Kahn: I think Anna is right in one respect, and Jimmy mentioned this earlier. There is a semantic difference between propaganda or news with distorted meaning, which is disseminated by a state or a news organization for some political purpose and which is based on facts, but their main task is to give their own interpretation of these facts in order to achieve ...

“This is President Macron. Some savage accusations were brought against him that he had secret bank accounts, that he was a secret homosexual, and so on. There is no basis for truth here.

Joseph Kahn: There is a whole spectrum here, where, on the one hand, there is propaganda and manipulation of information, and on the other hand, completely false and malicious fake news.

- But that's exactly what they talk about when they accuse RT.

Joseph Kahn: That is, you can discuss where they occupy in this spectrum.

Anna Belkina: None of these messages appeared on RT.

“Okay, I'll read you exactly what he said. Emmanuel Macron said that RT - he also referred to the Sputnik website - were “agents of influence who repeatedly disseminated false information about me and my company. They behave like agents of influence and false propaganda. " Here's what he said. Deal with him then.

Anna Belkina: We have tried, and many times.

Bilawal Zardari: I will speak out in defense of Russia Today. Politicians, media, biased media, disruptive agenda, and so on. But let's not forget that weapons of mass destruction in Iraq are also fake news. Theresa May says in this video that Russia today is using information as a weapon, but she also says it in the state-sponsored media. We are sitting on the BBC platform, which is funded by the UK. We must learn to see this. After all, if you look from the outside, we also often do not notice our own shortcomings and weaknesses of the Western position.

- Boldly of you, Bilawal. However, I must say that when we are wrong, we admit that we did something wrong. Our arguments are now not the same. Yes, you will say that RT is as much a national TV company as the BBC. But the BBC is overseen by the independent regulator Ofcom, which has nothing to do with the government. And the BBC regularly reports and investigates the government. Do you do the same on RT?

Anna Belkina: We are doing exactly the same thing. We are also checked by Ofcom, all our programs. And just like Joe just described the process ...

But the problem is that we are changing the rules of the game. The mistakes that RT made - of course, we made mistakes in our reports, and we returned to them, we corrected them, we published explanations for the audience. But when it comes to RT or other alternative voices, legitimate alternative voices in the media, this kind of accusation becomes a way to distort the meaning of what we do. Whereas other media outlets, say the New York Times and mainstream media outlets, get away with it.

Related Articles

Russia is the target of NATO "fake news"

The Independent 09/23/2017

The EU is Putin's main competitor

El País 12/01/2017

Russia threatens international order

The Guardian 11/14/2017

Fake news and biased news

Project Syndicate 11/07/2017

Sweden and Denmark against the Russian threat

Aftonbladet 08/31/2017 - The BBC regularly defends its position on issues like the war in Iraq and Brexit, which the government does not like. And the government regularly says, "We don't like what comes out on the BBC," and things like that. It happens all the time, endlessly. So it's not worth comparing.

Joseph Kahn: I would like to return to the question of Iraq. Because I would not want us to leave here with the general idea that the participants in this discussion consider the reports of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to be a good example of false news. From my point of view, this is by no means a good example of false news. This is an example of a totally inappropriate policy or political goal that has been aggressively and ultimately inaccurately presented by the media. In other words, there was no fake news.

- We have become victims of some kind of manipulation.

Joseph Kahn: The journalistic process of reporting on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was not a process of maliciously spreading fabricated false news. Therefore, I believe that this case cannot be classified in this category.

- Let's go back to weapons of mass destruction, or weapons of mass extinction, as they came to be called later.

Bilawal Zardari: My position is this: no matter what is said on the BBC or the New York Times, I respect honesty and independence. But the point is, they pushed through American intelligence messages that were pure fiction. So I don't know how you describe ...

Joseph Kahn: That's right: which then turned out to be pure fiction. At the time of their discussion, no one knew that it was fiction. If we knew that this was fiction, we would not report it. The New York Times, BBC, and other media outlets double-checked their information on this issue, but no one knew it was fiction.

- It seemed to me that one of the spectators reacted with irritation to the words spoken here. By the way, you can somehow demonstrate your attitude to what is happening, for example, applaud if you like. Let's listen to the questions. We have Iman Usman from Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country in the world. You work in the online learning industry. Your question, please. If possible, briefly.

Iman Usman: Many politicians abuse the media for their own short-term gain - winning elections. And this led to a rampant fake news, which, in turn, provoked a split within the communities. So my question to the panellists is: what danger is false news for democracy and who should provide an answer to this phenomenon?

- We will come back to the answer. Let's take the first question. How false news is dangerous for democracy. Interestingly, a poll was conducted this month that found 73% of Americans believe fake news is a threat to democracy. Joe?

Joseph Kahn: I think yes. Perhaps I will approach this issue from a different angle. I believe that excessive partisanship in politics - not only in the United States, but throughout the world - creates the phenomenon of fake news as opposed to fake news, which generates excessive partisanship. We are in an environment where people lead a political life based on personality, where they make connections with certain uses of information based on its political value, how political parties use it. I don't think false news is the cause of the problematic state of democracy. In my opinion, the spread of fake news is one of the most characteristic signs of the decline of common values \u200b\u200band the general understanding of the truth. Iman Usman: And my question to the group is how much danger fake news is for democracy, and who and how ... there is someone who should be responsible for this phenomenon ...

- We're going to take responsibility, let's take the first question first. How dangerous is fake news for democracy? In fact, a poll just this month shows that 73% of Americans believe fake news is indeed a threat to democracy. Joe…

Joseph Kahn: I think so, and I will turn this question a little differently. I think that hyperpartyism (a highly polarized situation when political parties strongly disagree with each other - approx. Transl.) In politics, not only in the United States, but also in the rest of the world, is the source of such a phenomenon as fake news. and she suggests that fake news in turn exacerbates this polarization. We now live in an environment where people base political life on their own identity, where they receive certain news and information that is consistent with their political values \u200b\u200band how their political parties use them. I do not think that fake news is exactly the cause of problems with democracy, in my opinion, the increase in the number of fake news is one of the most important symptoms of decline and dependence on certain generally accepted values \u200b\u200band a generally accepted judgment about what is true.

- Anna Belkina, is there a threat to democracy, what do you think?

Anna Belkina: Yes, I agree with you, Joe, that any false information can potentially be very dangerous not only for political processes, but for any public discussion in general. Nevertheless, there have been several studies in the United States and Europe, and they show that although people can be vulnerable to fake news, false stories and information, they mostly still make political decisions based on evidence, truthful information, which convincing to all of us. This does not mean that we can relax, but it can be a kind of beacon in this situation.

- Jimmy Wales, I want to draw your attention to the fact that the study "Trust Barometer", which covered 28 countries, shows that 65% of people get news from the Internet, and there is a lot of potential for wreaking havoc, because this is a lot , truth?

Jimmy Wales: That's a lot, really. But one of the gratifying things that became clear from this Trust Barometer is that people's trust in news from social media has dropped significantly, which means that people are beginning to realize that some of what they are missing social media may be true, but at times it's worth going to the source for verification.

- This is the very essence, isn't it, exactly this? Do people really believe that this story of Donald Trump being supported by the Pope as a candidate, given to us by some Macedonian teenagers, is true? I mean, you know, smart people, they should think: Pope Francis supports migration and so on, this cannot be true. Shouldn't we put more trust in human intelligence?

- But they don't believe in her, although they shared ...

Joseph Kahn: It's unclear, you don't know. But I [know] that most of the times when people share something on social media, it means they want their friends and community to see and understand it.

- What do you think, if people share something on social networks, then they believe that the story is true?

Jimmy Wales: Yes, I think they think it is either bothering enough or convincing enough in the context of how they feel right now that it can be told to someone, so that it deserves a read or some kind of warning at all. I think that this is all very difficult for those who are addicted to reading the news: you need to keep in mind all the time that there may be news that immediately shows that they are just ridiculous, like the one about the dad who supports Trump. But people who consume news less often and treat them more innocently ... by the way, I think that in a free society people have the right not to be interested in news, but when they do receive some information, it must be of high quality. They have a right to quality information.

- Anna Belkina?

Anna Belkina: I think we should first pay attention to why they have to read and share news there, and I believe that one of the important reasons is that most people in Europe and the United States have felt that their own media for many years not quite fulfilling their task, as they saw that they did not reflect their reality very well. And so they began to turn to alternative voices, some of which are legal and responsible, like RT, while others are not. And until the mainstream media takes a critical look at why this environment was created in the first place, until reporters and columnists make an honest effort to satisfy those needs, and not just squeeze legitimate alternative voices out of the news discourse, this is a problem. will remain.

- Anna Belkina points out the weakness of the mainstream media, this is a really acute question: why does the audience turn to other sources of information? Is it because the mainstream media are failing in their task of giving the public and readers what they need? That is, it turns out that you also bear part of the responsibility ...

Joseph Kahn: I believe that our task is to reach as many people as possible with our journalism, but I think you need to understand that a large proportion of the reading audience wants to receive information that corresponds to their political beliefs and preferences, but “The New York Times "And the BBC are not obliged to supply them with information confirming their beliefs, we are obliged to provide them with journalism. In a hyperparty society, you come across people who are constantly looking for sources of information confirming the validity of their political beliefs. They often fail to do this in the most authoritative media, and then they look elsewhere. But it is not our responsibility to feed them fake or misleading news just to validate their political beliefs.

- Okay, but many people say that the responsibility of the official media is also that they failed in the formation of some kind of standards, which in its way also contributed to the growth of the number of fake news.

Joseph Kahn: I would not agree with that.

“Maybe it’s not about The New York Times, but others ...

Joseph Kahn: As you can imagine, I cannot speak for all representatives of the official media, but I think that the official media are basically doing everything possible to try to improve their work. They make mistakes at times, the journalistic process is inherently imperfect, but we have a responsibility to deliver factual journalism, and this is how we win our audience. You know that we have a very significant audience. But you cannot, looking at the world of news and information in general, blame the failure of the official media for the fact that opinions conditioned by someone's political preferences have begun to circulate so intensively on the Internet.

- Good. Let's turn to the public, we have one more question. Rebecca McKinon from the United States, who focuses on information technology and free speech and privacy criteria. Rebecca, your question is short, please.

Rebecca McKinon: Of course ... My question is related to the previous one, but it concerns business models in democracy. We now know from the research of the processes that have taken place in recent years that the information companies that appear on social networks are the result of very skilful use of the functions and services that social media like Facebook provide advertisers in the Internet market. And the question is whether our media ecosystem is overly reliant on advertising, especially in terms of those advertising technologies that track people all over the internet and send targeted messages to very specific groups of people. To what extent does this threaten the existence of a democratic society?

- Yes, this is a big topic, let's limit ourselves to discussing whether we need to somehow rework our business model, which assumes that advertising hits the target as closely as possible ...

Jimmy Wales: Yes, the advertising business model has been extremely damaging to journalism, but one of the most encouraging signs I've come across in the last couple of years is the incredibly personalized, digital-only subscription to The New York Times and other quality publications: people finally , are beginning to understand that you still have to pay for high-quality journalism. The particular problem with these advertising technologies is that wherever I go on the Internet, I see the same advertisements everywhere, I see advertisements for boats, because I love boats. In the old days, you could say, I want to sell boats, I'm looking for men in their fifties in a midlife crisis because they usually buy boats, and you assume they can read The New York Times, The Guardian and the Wall Street Journal, for example, so you advertise there. Now it’s not like that, I can be on Reddit, on some forum, on some spam site, anywhere, and everywhere it will be the same. This means that serious players are now directly competing with each other in receiving dollars directly for clicks, which becomes a source of inappropriate motivation for everyone.

- So, we need to redesign our business model?

Jimmy Wales: We need to rework our business model, that's right. Advertising as one of the elements of the business model is good, but in such an environment where advertising services are very highly automated, journalism simply cannot be a competitor, we are talking only about endless clicks.

- We will come back to the decision, to the idea of \u200b\u200bwhat can be done, we will get to that, and now ... We need to rework our business model, what do you think?

Bilawal Zardari: Certainly, I agree that not only fake news, but this business model is a fundamental threat to democracy and the media, especially in countries like Pakistan, although there are other examples. Big business corporations control most or even all of the media in Pakistan, they dominate everywhere, they control the presentation of information, and they do not hesitate to produce fictional news, launch fictional information in online media, and the quality of journalism in Pakistan ... So let me tell you that Pakistan has very good journalism, in my country we managed to prevent three military dictatorships thanks to some of the bravest journalists. But because of this commercialization, because the big industry is bringing money to Pakistan and the government is giving out cash, what is being done on television now is more of staging, PR and propaganda.

- Anna Belkina, do you think the current business model, which seeks only to succeed in a big advertising competition, leads to the pursuit of sensations and can it become a breeding ground for fake news?

Anna Belkina: I believe this is part of the problem, but not the main one. From my point of view, false information is equally harmful when it is generated and disseminated purely for entertainment, and when it is done for the sake of political influence or in order to make money from it. And the problem, again. is how we can build immunity from the audience against this kind of information, regardless of why it was created and disseminated. And I know we'll get to that later.

- And it seems to me that this brings us to the problem of whether to consider media like Twitter, Facebook, Google, and so on, publishers or social platforms. If these are publications the same as newspapers, or the same "BBC", then they are required to comply with many rules. And they just don't want to be treated like that. What do you think, should they be more responsible, and should, say, Facebook rethink its entire business model and develop a new algorithm that, for example, will cope with a lot of commercial content from brands and news providers. Jimmy Wales, you nod, so ...

Jimmy Wales: Yes, I think it's very interesting what Facebook is doing, and we don't yet know exactly where this will lead. On the one hand, serious publishers should be glad that, perhaps, it is possible to get support in social networks not only due to enticing headlines, but on the other hand, many are worried that this will lead to a decrease in traffic from Facebook, and in the short term these the fears are not unfounded, I am sure. But I really think that social platforms should pay attention to the role of the information they provide to consumers, not only for reasons of concern for the public interest - although, of course, this should be considered - but also for the quality of the experience that users get from them. ... If there is a feeling that you are coming to Facebook or Twitter, all sorts of crazy stories will fall on you there, and you cannot even figure out where the truth is and where not, it is possible that you will not want to go there at all, you stop using Facebook and say: I want a simple service to look at photos of my friends' children. And then everyone will move to Instagram, why do they need Facebook. So the point is that they take it seriously.

“And you think they haven't done enough for that yet.

Jimmy Wales: I believe they did not do enough to keep the reputation of their brands from being tarnished.

- But do you classify them as platforms, not as publishers, who are obliged to follow certain rules? Do you still think these are social platforms?

Context

Assad's chemical attack - fake?

Hlavné spravy 27.04.2017

Imichara: an opera about a drug against Trump

Operatico Politico 08/16/2017

Fakes and double standards of the Kremlin

EurasiaNet 05/18/2017

The American empire is falling apart from the inside

CounterPunch 03/30/2017 - Joe Kahn ...

Joseph Kahn: Facebook is among those caught in this real predicament, and they are strongly opposed to being reclassified in the business ecosystem as a publisher, which would mean they are responsible for what their two billion users around the world post. ... Ultimately, to ensure accuracy and truthfulness, they would need to hire everyone in the world to ensure that everything published on their platform up to their standards, as a good publisher usually does. And so, in the case of Facebook, it is literally impossible to change their business model to publishing. At the same time, they feel somewhat the same pressure as publishers, because they themselves feel a certain responsibility for the worst fake news that can influence political debate. I think this explains why Mark Zuckerberg announced this algorithm change to step back in some way from trying to be the main news provider or to position himself that way. And while that doesn't mean that news will no longer appear on this platform at all, it wants to be a social media that people don't use as their main source of information.

“But they may face a real decline in income as a result of their policy revision. They may just disappear.

Joseph Kahn: This is unlikely to happen, but in my opinion, their role as a source of news and information may become less significant, and, at least judging by what they tell us, they themselves will not resist what is no longer considered such an important source. news and information.

Bilawal Zardari: How will Facebook's decision affect publications like The New York Times? After all, when news is actively promoted on Facebook, it helps to increase the number of views of the publication's website.

- You're doing my job now!

Bilawal Zardari: I apologize.

- Nothing wrong. I give you permission.

Joseph Kahn: We are closely watching this situation, we are concerned, but we believe that this affects us in a different way than the ecosystem of fake news providers seeking to increase the number of views through clickbait advertisers, which we have never done. Facebook has never provided us with sufficient income to cover the costs of gathering information, reporting and publishing real news. Be that as it may, these are real pennies compared to publishing on our platform as a digital media company or direct income from readers' subscriptions. Facebook is a very small source of our income.

- So it won't play a decisive role.

Joseph Kahn: There will be some impact, but we hope that it will not be very significant.

- Anna Belkina, what do you think about this business model changing over time?

Anna Belkina: In my opinion, when discussing the role of all these platforms, we should not represent these three American companies, three platforms as global news censors. Of course, I cannot imagine when the fake information itself will cease to be the center of attention, and I hope that this will happen, because it damages all of us. But these platforms should not decide that one point of view is more valuable than another, that, for example, the Washington Post should promote more than the New York Times, BBC, TF1 or RT. when they publish credible reports.

- This is a very valuable argument. We've already said, as Joe Kahn said, we just might not have enough fact-checking specialists when we are dealing with a huge stream of news and trying to figure out what is fake and what is not.

Anna Belkina: This leads them into the temptation to become de facto censors ...

“This is a very dangerous delusion. Even if you find so many specialists, who will make the decisions?

When you imagine possible solutions, it must be quite difficult. For example, where YouTube has excelled in removing fake news, extremist videos, and the like after the first warning that they are not true. In my opinion, they are quite successful in this. What other ways can there be to solve this problem? You have a Wikitribune project.

Jimmy Wales: Yes, Wikitribune is my attempt to play a small part in thinking about this problem. My idea is this: we know that working in the user community has a huge positive result, we see this on the example of Wikipedia, of course, not everything is perfect there, but good people work there, striving to do everything as best as possible. I'm curious to see if it's possible to create a Wikipedia-style community, connect with professional journalists who get paid for their work, and create something new in the news space.

- That is, you want to combine civic journalism with professional journalism, organize their cooperation?

Jimmy Wales: Yes, cooperation on an equal footing. You see, genuine citizen journalism has sometimes produced interesting projects, but it constantly stumbles upon obstacles that are inevitable for a simple conscious person sitting at home and working in their free time. You simply cannot leave everything and take up the investigation of some plot, which will take three days and the like. At the same time, we know that thoughtful people can make a significant difference. In the past, the structure of most news sites has not produced anything useful for the reader community. A classic example: here you have a news article, and underneath it are the worst people in the world, cursing each other. This is why many journalists are wary of the Internet community: their experience is that they published something, and then they began to be attacked in the comments. It's not healthy at all. These angry people writing comments do not represent all of humanity, there are many good people in the world.

- So you want to create a new site with news that people write for people. How will the work of a civil journalist be paid? Once professional journalists receive a fee, it would be fair ...

Jimmy Wales: These are volunteers, they do it out of love for the topic, for the love of news ...

- Is it fair that some will be paid and others will not?

Jimmy Wales: If someone considers this to be unfair, then they should not take part in this. If you are interested, you can do it.

- So, this is Wikitribune, soon you will be able to get acquainted with this project, it will soon appear in your Internet space.

Let's go back to our audience and listen to a question from Zuneid Ahmed Palak, Minister of Information and Technology of the Republic of Bangladesh.

Zuneid Ahmed Palak: I thank the distinguished participants in this discussion for their in-depth analysis of the topic. In my opinion, there are two ways to deal with fake news. One of them is, of course, tough regulation, and the second is self-censorship. My question to the panellists will be: what would you advise to do in a country like Bangladesh, or would you prefer a mixed version?

- Do you mean that an attempt to rigidly regulate the flow of information will deal a blow to freedom of speech?

Zuneid Ahmed Palak:Yes, because tough government orders to regulate fake news could actually harm free speech and press freedom. Therefore, my question to the participants in the discussion concerns the preferred way to combat this phenomenon: which is better, self-censorship or strict regulation? Or would you prefer something in between?

- Okay, thank you. As we know, in the UK, the Prime Minister has already ordered the creation of a new unit to combat fake news. We also know that France and Germany have introduced regulatory rules, in particular, Germany has imposed very significant penalties for creating fake news. That is, we already have before our eyes an example of government orders in relation to fake news. I would like to address this question first to Bilawal Bhutto: So how do you find the right balance in an attempt to regulate hate speech while preserving freedom of speech?

Bilawal Zardari: I am very interested in how this situation will develop further in Germany, a country that seeks to uphold fundamental democratic rights. It will be very interesting to see how things will be there with the settlement of falsifications, as, indeed, in France. But with regard to the question of the Minister of State of Bangladesh, I am afraid of threats to freedom of speech, especially in young democracies like ours, where there is a tendency towards authoritarianism. That is why I am very inspired by projects like Wikitribune, because there are many citizen journalists in Pakistan who can find a trusting audience in this way, can write for real, and it will help them learn something. I like projects like Africa Check or the Ukrainian resource Stopfake, where journalists come together, like in Politifact, to check fake news. And, perhaps, this will form a whole community, following towards a common goal.

- So you want the fake news to be checked from below, and not from above, by the government?

Bilawal Zardari: I would say that it is more pleasant for me to imagine something like that.

- And, in your opinion, will that be enough? Let's say, for example, Pakistan is holding elections this year.

Bilawal Zardari: Exactly. And I'm sure that ... We have already come across fake news in the pre-election period, both in Bangladesh and in Pakistan, they have been around for a long time. There is one component in this issue: I personally cannot entrust my state with the task of regulating information.

- What if you are faced with a truly harmful and destructive impact of fake news in your country, for example, if it causes someone else to die? Doesn't it require a strong hand from the state instead of volunteer control?

Bilawal Zardari: No, I think we are missing one key component - education. In my opinion, we must reconsider the way we teach children in school. I don't remember being told anything about journalism in high school, and I had to take such an elective at the university. If we were to tell kids about source verification, bias, how to do research and test different points of view, if we told them what fake news looks like ... I think education is a key component in this matter in countries like this, like ours.

- Anna Belkina, what can you say about fake news and threats to freedom of speech and the government's role in regulating falsifications?

Anna Belkina:The activities of many traditional information platforms - the press, television - are already quite strictly regulated by governments, this applies to both RT and the BBC, so I do not in any case think that additional regulation will be a solution to this Problems. As a member of the media community, I believe that a solution can be found within the community of journalists itself, in the area of \u200b\u200bmutual responsibility. But it loses its relevance when Donald Trump accuses someone of spreading fraud, and the media takes it as a sign of honor, and President Macron does the same. And nobody even checks this information. This can only exist outside of double standards, and not when editorial errors are used as an excuse to accuse entire organizations of falsification, while other people's mistakes are constantly justified. But when there is a fair attitude, analysis of information, when mistakes made by our team can be indicated, when they can become the subject of constructive discussion, for example, with the New York Times and other publications, but RT can defend its position, - this is the most constructive approach, in my opinion.

- Joe Kahn.

Joseph Kahn: Both the United States under President Trump and the Russian government under Vladimir Putin have taken on leadership roles in countering what they call fraud, which I believe reflects the riskiness of government intervention and oversight. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has a seal, a big red seal, which it puts on messages it considers to be falsified. Donald Trump had a fake news award. They are not the people that the wider community should be targeting, not the ones who can tell us what is reliable in news and what is not. In my opinion, it is very easy to slip from here into authoritarianism.

- So you are against government regulation?

Joseph Kahn: I would say that I hardly believe at all that a government settlement can be a way to deal with fake news. The only thing that can be effective in the fight against fraud is to improve the quality of the news work, pay more attention to quality news, strive more for quality news on online platforms and, finally, just have more information at hand to counter malicious falsification. ...

“This is an incentive for publications like The New York Times. Is this why your circulation has increased?

Joseph Kahn: People have a preference for brands they can trust, and this is confirmed on social media in authentic, original reporting, and over time we only need to remind you of this.

- Jimmy Wales?

Jimmy Wales: Particularly in fragile democracies, where the potential for government pressure on publishers to arise, strong regulations are an extremely dangerous option. I also don’t think that self-censorship can be a solution to this problem, I don’t even really know what it is, I think this is an initially incorrect dichotomy. What we need, in my opinion, is a strong ecosystem, we need independent journalism that can tell the truth to the authorities, but at the same time is able to distinguish fake news and tell the truth about it.

- So, Minister, you have a number of good options, now, when you return to your work, you can draw up a whole project with your citizens.

Now let's move on to the last question from our audience, Victor Oshen, a young activist from Uganda. Please, your question.

Victor Oshen: Thank you very much. I am from Africa, from a continent that has probably become the biggest victim of fraud. I wanted to ask the following question: on a continent like Africa, in its various countries, tribal ties are very strong in relation to politicians. Therefore, citizens do not question whether the news about their political leaders is true. I would like to ask you, how, being inside such rhetoric, you can try to change this culture, how to deal with such norms?

- Joe Kahn, I think you talked a little earlier about how people seek out opinions that reflect their own values, therefore, speaking in the context of Africa and the question asked, when people are connected by tribal ties, how can you try ...

Joseph Kahn: It seems to me that tribal ties are widespread not only in Africa.

- Yes, this is a more general context, but the question was, how can you start changing such a culture?

Joseph Kahn: In my opinion, this is a common problem, and the situation is getting worse and worse: it consists in the incredible conditioning of political discussions by party affiliation. I think that even facts that are not conditioned by political affiliation turn out to be subordinate to the party paradigm. You believe what you have to believe, as your political leader or your party representative dictates to you. This concerns climate change, economic processes, what is happening in your community, threats from immigrants ... The notion of the need to use independent, factually verified information in a democratic discussion has recently faded into the background. Tribal ties are starting to play an increasing role. And, in my opinion, this is the huge dilemma of the mainstream media, which by their nature cannot belong to any parties, and, on this basis, they cannot fully satisfy the demand of the audience, highlighting the party relations.

- But this does not apply to all newspapers: for example, in the UK there is the Daily Telegraph, which is called the Daily Torygraph, because it is associated with the country's conservative party, the Guardian newspaper ...

Joseph Kahn: But imagine that Wikipedia, Wikitribune will develop in this direction, then this will lead to a significant deterioration ...

- Be that as it may, they do not pedal fake news.

Jimmy Wales: What is important here, in my opinion: people like to buy, for example, a newspaper, it corresponds to their worldview, and so on, and this is in the order of things ...

- It's a center-left newspaper in Great Britain.

Jimmy Wales: Or, for example, they buy the Daily Telegraph, and that's okay too. But Wikipedia is incredibly popular, just like the New York Times, people understand this, they also have a great desire to get clear factual information, unambiguous, as neutral and clear as possible.

- Our discussion is coming to an end. That is, in fact, it is a sealed environment and its impact on fake news. Anna Belkina, and then Bilawal Bhutto. Anna?

Anna Belkina: I think the solution to this problem should be a variety of points of view and a variety of stories reflected in honest, reliable reporting, which is what RT is striving for. Seeking news and issues outside of given borders, such as in the United States, outside of a party division, is a way to ensure the public has access to the widest possible range of reliable news.

Bilawal Zardari: The issue of tribal ties and dependence on party opinions is very important, party affiliation began to have a very toxic effect on the foundations of democracy at the international level. But I'm curious that President Trump, in establishing these awards, is rounding up and denouncing as party publications that were previously considered objective news organizations. By hating you from a party standpoint, he almost forces you to respond in the same manner.

- Do you think fake news, no matter how unfortunate this definition may be, will continue to exist further? Anna Belkina?

Anna Belkina: Yes, but not for long. I think we all understand what they are fraught with.

Jimmy Wales: I believe that, as such, fake news, spammer sites generated by teenagers will be sorted out using certain algorithms in Google, Facebook and other resources. But deeper problems remain with social media and its funding, and we still have a lot of work to do with them.

Bilawal Zardari: We will face them for a long time, I only hope that we will learn to recognize them and teach our citizens this.

Joseph Kahn: As such, fake news is becoming less popular, and fake news in the form of political slander is gaining more and more popularity. And this is the main threat at the moment.

- On this we have to end. Thank you very much. So you've heard a whole range of opinions on fake news, which I hope has given you food for thought. Many thanks to the participants in the discussion and many thanks to our audience, I think we have covered all aspects of this topic. Before we close, I'll quickly ask Joe Kahn: How do you think you will receive the White House fake news award this year too?

Joseph Kahn: I would like to say that I look forward to it. If it looks the same as it did in the past, I wouldn't mind.

- Bilawal, do you think it is right to continue this story with awards for fake news, or is it better to just eradicate them as a fact, so as not to give an extra reason?

Bilawal Zardari: I think they will take on a life of their own, and we just have to get used to them.

- Thanks to the participants of our discussion and our audience at the World Economic Forum from me, Zeynab Badawi, and the entire team of organizers of these discussions.

InoSMI materials contain assessments exclusively of foreign mass media and do not reflect the position of the Inosmi editorial board.

Christian Amanpour

Journalist, TV presenter on CNN.

What is fake news

The climate change debate is a good example. 99.9% of the data on this phenomenon is confirmed by science, but they are still discussed almost on an equal footing with the statements of those who deny climate change. The concept of fake news has only taken shape in the last few years. And this is not just a loud term that can be thrown to the right and left. When we cannot distinguish between truth and fiction, we cannot resolve the accumulated problems. And this is truly disturbing.

There are situations in which you simply cannot maintain neutrality, otherwise you become an accomplice. And for journalists, objectivity is especially important. But not everyone understands what objectivity is. Many people take for an objective assessment the conviction that all parties to the conflict are equally guilty. In fact, to be objective means to allow all parties to speak and listen to them equally impartially, but not to recognize them morally or in fact as equal.

If, in a situation of gross violation of international laws and human rights, we do not understand what is true and what is fiction, then we become accomplices.

Why are they dangerous

When the Internet first began to develop, it seemed to everyone that it would significantly increase access to knowledge and help fight prejudices, that an increase in channels would ensure transparency and accuracy of data. In fact, according to Amanpour, the opposite happened. With the emergence of a huge number of news platforms and social networks, people have become closed each in their own "tunnel". They focus only on a narrow area of \u200b\u200btheir interests and do not see the big picture.

In the traditional media, certain norms were observed. The stories were checked for reliability, the dubious ones were not published. But now the goal of publishing and distributing news is often only to get the attention of readers. Naturally, as never before, a lot of unreliable information appears. For example, during the US presidential election, fake news sites were purposefully created to influence public opinion.

How to protect yourself

• Be careful about the sources of information.
• Responsibly approach what you read, listen to, and watch.
• No matter how many sources of information you browse, always rely on a few trusted publications first and foremost.

Today our problems are so great that if we do not all act together as citizens of the world who value truth and are guided by scientific data and facts, then we will simply come to disaster.

Christian Amanpour

Donald Trump calls news he disagrees with fake

The scale of Facebook and Twitter is 2 billion and 330 million users, respectively. The dozens of hours that we spend on these social networks show that many eyeballs in one way or another come into contact with fake news or misinformation campaigns.

According to a study by Stanford University, fake news sites received 159 million visits during the month of last year's US election campaign, while other studies show that the most frequently shared articles during the election were fake. Most of them are pro-Trump.

We find less evidence that fake news came out in the UK during the EU exit vote or the last elections. However, there is clear evidence of bots cheating in both cases.

There is a difference between reach and impact. The latter is very difficult to assess. It is still not clear whether the media is controlling views or simply reflecting them.

One effect that can be gauged is how the amount of fake news reduces the credibility of the mainstream media. It could be argued that this increases skepticism about what people read online. However, people may just start to trust their prejudices.

People are losing confidence in traditional media formats. Change in the level of confidence in 2017 compared to 2012.

What do they do about it

After widespread criticism, companies had to start fighting fake news. Facebook, Twitter and Google reported on measures to curb disinformation online.

Facebook, which has come under close scrutiny, says it has recruited fact-checkers to flag controversial stories, cut ad revenue for fake news sites, and moderate ads better. Twitter claims to be better at dealing with bots, and Google has promised to improve YouTube video ranking algorithms.

However, criticism continues. Not enough seems to have been done, and tech companies are reluctant to take action. They are afraid to look prejudiced or to be responsible for everything that users post to them. Facebook looks like the most influential media company in the world, but does not associate itself with the media.

However, the problem can be solved without their participation, thanks to political fears. Theresa May calls Putin's Russia "" destroying the foundations of the Western world. Politicians in the UK and the United States have launched an investigation into Russian interference in the elections.

How to calculate a fake yourself

Calculating fake news is not easy. A study from Stanford University last year found that students have difficulty distinguishing between paid, fake, or acceptable content on the web.

1. Be skeptical about headlines. Fake news headlines are often attention-grabbing and contain a lot of capital letters or exclamation marks. If the title sounds ridiculous, then it probably is.

1. Look carefully at the address of the article. Many fake news mimics authentic news sites with a slight change in address. You can go to a real site to check the page addresses.

1. Check the source. Make sure the story comes from a reputable source. If it is hanging on an unfamiliar site, check its description in the "About Us" section.

1. Pay attention to the unusual design. Many fake news items contain typos and grammatical errors, as well as strange presentation.

1. Check the photos. Fake stories contain manipulative photos or videos. Sometimes they can be authentic, but taken out of context. Search through the pictures to find the real source of the photo.

1. Check the dates. Timelines in fake news may not make any sense, or give incorrect or controversial dates.

1. Check the evidence. Check the author's sources to confirm their reliability. Lack of evidence or the credibility of anonymous experts may indicate news fraud.

1. Find other reports. If no one else has covered the news, then most likely it is fake.

1. This is a joke? Sometimes false news can be hard to tell from humorous articles. Check if the source can be parody, and the tone and details of the articles are comic.

1. Some stories deliberately lie. Think critically about the content of the stories you read and only share what you are sure of.

News stories are often so detailed that it is impossible to just come up with all these details. This makes them great news stories. But it makes sense to maintain a healthy skepticism about anything. Could this have happened at all?

By the way, you can follow the announcements of new articles in my Telegram channel. Subscribe not to miss anything!

We have released a new book, "Content Marketing on Social Media: How to Get Into the Heads of Subscribers and Fall in Love with Your Brand."

Fake news is fake news that is created to trick the reader in order to increase profits and traffic.

But this is not satirical news, in which the addition and exaggeration of elements is used for the purpose of entertaining the reader, focusing the audience's attention on a particular issue.

Let's give an example. Printing and mass media have been developing for several decades. Every now and then, "sensational" news, loud revelations and the discovery of world secrets appear in them. In fact, these are nothing more than ordinary newspaper ducks, "fakes". Today similar news appeared.

Who benefits from creating fake news and why

First of all, fake news is created to distract the audience's attention from really meaningful and important news. As a rule, politicians use them.

For example, during the last presidential race in the United States, there were many scandals and not the most pleasant news around the candidate Donald Trump. To divert attention from the publication of new curious facts from the life of a businessman, the candidate for the post of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn published a post on the social network under the loud title "Sexual crimes with children" and subtly hinted that it was dedicated to the activities of the Democrats. Naturally, public attention shifted to the flaring up scandal around members of the Democratic Party, and Trump's moral character no longer seemed so negative. Later it turned out that the news was fake.

It is also beneficial to create fake news on the Internet to increase popularity or earnings. When you publish "tasty" news about famous people, they will definitely be made public, passed on to each other, like, comment, and repost. As a result, the popularity of the resource increases, as a result - its profit.

Also, fake news can be created for the purpose of PR, even black. Customers want to see the result, to be talked about. But the creators get a good reward for this.
News fakes are also used today to attract traffic to the resource. Surely, you have received letters by e-mail with loud headlines and bright photos. In this case, one goal is pursued - for the user to follow the link and visit the promoted resource. But it is worth remembering that you cannot earn money in this way and attract really high-quality traffic.

How to spot fake news

After we have defined what fake news is, it will be useful to know how not to get caught.

• Read headlines critically. If in the headline the author literally screams about the importance and sensationalism of the news, using a question or exclamation mark, most likely you are in front of another fake.
• Check the news URL. There are not only fake news, but entire fake news sites. So do not be lazy to check the news link.
• Trust only trusted sources. Before sharing shocking news with friends, check if it is true. Be sure to find out about the resource on which you read it. Go to the "About Us" section and study the resource.
• Watch out for mistakes. If there are a lot of typos, punctuation and spelling errors on a resource, that's a duck. The author was too busy creating a sensation to proofread and check the text.
• Check out video and photo content. This is in the photo Philip Kirkorov passionately kisses with Queen Elizabeth, most likely, this is a masterpiece of the master of Photoshop. You can check the authenticity of the photographic material using the Google search engine in the "pictures" section. If so many significant and vivid photos are listed only on the Syktyvkar Sensations website, the likelihood of a fake increases hundreds of times.
• Check the publication date. Fakes, as a rule, do not have a publication date. How can you date an event that never happened? And, in principle, the logic is simple: suddenly now the news about the wedding of Donald Trump and Angela Merkel will not "come out", but in a year it will attract a huge audience.
• Try to find the same news in other publications. If no other publication can boast of the same sensation, it is most likely fake.
• Make sure it's not satire. Very often "comic" news is published by major publications on the eve of April 1 and similar holidays. There are also entire news resources that publish only joke news.

Fighting fake news

Fake news on the Internet is a problem today.

The European Union believes that fakes undermine the reputation of the media and destroy modern democratic values. In the EU, in January 2018, a group of international experts was organized to counter the creation and spread of fake news. The first meeting took place in mid-January.

The current President of France, Emmanuel Macron, is currently seeking the adoption of legislation aimed at countering the spread of false information on the Internet.

The UK government is now actively working to create a dedicated government agency to combat disinformation and fake news.

As you can see, the whole world recognizes this problem as urgent, and measures are being taken to combat it. However, until the fake news is taken under government control, it remains to be as vigilant as possible, check and recheck data and news from the Internet.