Comment by hawkice | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hawkice | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Let's be clear: places like the BBC do _both_. Case and point:

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002051.h...

discusses this article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4361563.stm

This is literally email spam. The whole point of the article is a lie designed to sell a ridiculously dumb product which absolutely does not work as described. This is arguably worse than fake news. Because it's spam!

Note: I'd appreciate a law that penalizes this kind of lying. I admit there is potential for abuse, and that we'd need a good legal standard for getting something obviously wrong as opposed to just getting something wrong. But this has a massive social cost, and I think it's not unreasonable to balance out those massive social costs.

Here's an idea: many news outlets sell access to their news. I should be able to sue them if they give me something that is not news. I also think there is an implied warranty for news sites, and so you should be able to sue even if you aren't paying. That's a legal theory that would work okay, probably.

Or better yet, if we remember back to the Libyan civil war, we have this BBC broadcast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_-lzI8I0_0

With this BBC story to go with it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/9414812.stm

Now, to summarize.

1. BBC claims there there are masses of people waving pre-Gaddafi flag in the middle of Tripoli, a red, green, and black tri-color.

2. BBC shows footage of people in India waving the Indian flag, a white, green, and gold tri-color. With a 'Live from Tripoli' caption on it. With the talking heads nodding their heads, and saying 'Yep, sure are a lot of Libyans protesting Gaddafi there.'

3. Coming soon - the debate in the House of Commons about how we need to bomb Gaddafi.

How on Earth is this not fake news? What kind of collapse of process and journalistic integrity has to take place, in order to allow that sequence of events to happen? If they let such an obviously verifiable lie slip through, how often do they air unverifiable ones?

Talking about taking pictures from India and just lying about them, this is a nice collection of reporting where people are saying they're catching pictures of Chinese injustice towards Tibetans but are actually seeing things not happening in China at all.

http://wenhousecrafts.com/2008/mar/westernmedia.htm

The insane part is, when challenged by the Chinese-run media about the lies, the western news outlets complained that, well, China doesn't let us see what's happening in Tibet, so really it's your fault.

Let that sink in: they knew accurate pictures were impossible, so they chose to lie instead. That sounds like...

fake news.

That's not bias, that's printing something false because it tells a story you like.

Or say your government claims X has WMD and that we need to go to war, now. And, the press prints it as factual news. Turns out there's wasn't any and the government just misled (could be willful or ignorance or negligence). Now, will the press be held accountable for fake news or the government or no one?

As I point out somewhere else in this thread, we'd want a standard that distinguishes between getting something obviously wrong and getting something wrong. We're all on the same page on that one.

While that is the intention, I am guessing it would lead to having legal involved in the editorial process. And, legalase-ish news to avoid prosecution traps, perhaps. Am not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing.

I have an anonymous, unverified source, who will not cite their evidence because of national security that claims that Obama is a Reptilian who was born on Mars.

If CNN, the NYT, the Washington Post all uncritically parrot this, does that make them in on the lie, or no better then a tabloid?

Luckily, there are already legal standards for 'what a reasonable person would believe' in a given circumstance, so this part may not be a tricky legal puzzle at all.

Would a reasonable person believe that the CIA smuggles drugs into the United States, so that it can fund Contra rebels in Nicaragua?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_involvement_in_Contra_coca...

Or, alternatively, half of the things on this list?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio...

They would, upon being shown evidence of them. That's my point.

Depends on the evidence, people are not always rational. I remember being called crazy before the Snowden leaks, then afterwards everyone just knew it was happening all along.

People have different standards for evidence and coping mechanisms for uncomfortable truths.

Title in quotes. "makers say" "B2Up says" "in theory" Big skepticism section.

This article is pointless but it's not lying.

Sadly, this is also wrong. Many parts are outside of quotes or indirection and state false things. For instance:

"The gum works by slowly releasing compounds contained in an extract from a plant called Pueraria mirifica."

That's the whole paragraph. If you can explain how that's not the BBC lying, please, enlighten me.

That's all beside the point. The story isn't about the claims being made, the story is "chewing gum can 'enhance breasts'". They never indicate the claims could possibly be false (even in the section labeled skepticism, which for some reason you believe contains skepticism), so saying, since most of the language is in quotes or using sources, it's somehow _super real news_ is somewhat astonishing.

The gum does have those compounds. That part isn't a lie. You might be reading too much into "works by". That means it's the active ingredient, not a claim of effectiveness.

Not having a counterpoint is lazy journalism, but it's not lying to go "X claims Y". And this article does have a counterpoint. "has not been extensively studied and such products may be simply another food gimmick"

This is like stepping into bizarro-world. You're saying _there is an active ingredient_ yet denying that there was a claim that it did anything! There is no active ingredient! It's email spam! It doesn't work by any means at all. You could correctly say it contains X, Y or Z. But saying there is an active ingredient says there is an ingredient that does something! There isn't!

You are being painfully pedantic. I had originally written my comment in an elaborate and precise way, but it was roundabout and I thought "active ingredient" would be simpler to get the meaning across. Apparently not. I'll go back to the original:

The gum does what it does by releasing those compounds. "works by" means that the gum's mechanism is releasing those. This in itself is not promising any particular outcome.

I can show you a "skin rejuvenator" and then tell you that "It does nothing. It works by blinking lights at you." and I would not be contradicting myself. "works by" is only stating mechanism, not result.

Nowhere in that article does the BBC claim a result.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com