Outsourcing reality checks to private organizations is a serious problem with 21st century America.
The Southern Poverty Law Center is another similar org that is treated as authoritative yet has zero safeguards or unbiased processes.
The Southern Poverty Law Center is another similar org that is treated as authoritative yet has zero safeguards or unbiased processes.
It certainly isn't government sources, and it's not traditional news sources, and big technology isn't a good choice either.
Snopes used to be a pretty good place to link to dispute clearly bullshit stuff that idiots would forward around the internet as if it had any chance of being true, but at some point there was just too much of that. And they also seemed to expand their scope into things that were more nuanced and easier to get wrong.
The solution is the same as it’s always been: read multiple sources that have different viewpoints.
The wiki model seems alright to me. It just needs a better way to view changes.
The best defense against it is good journalism, honesty, clarity, and disclosure.
Then, when the narrative shifted to it being Russian intelligence, I never heard anything like my previous story again.
I'm really unclear what actually happened. Was that a progression of events, was it always Russian, was it never Russian?
No, it didn't. the term became popular during his campaign to describe fake Facebook and other social media posts presenting themselves as legitimate news, but spreading false information. The term itself predates Trump's campaign entirely, though.
>They were saying it in their most serious journalist voice, to imply that Trump voters were duped into voting for him.
You expect to be taken seriously with juvenile caricatures like this?
>Then shortly after it was appropriated by Trump himself, and everyone wanted to disavow the phrase, which was deeply hilarious.
Trump used it all the time to describe any media coverage he didn't like, and later Trump claimed he invented the term (he didn't.) He probably wants royalties.
If you are the secondary source, you should of course include your references. If you're the primary source (e.g. you're quoting anonymous administration officials), feel free to declare it a fact; people shouldn't just believe you, but putting your reputation on the line is actually a good signal to me (contingent on said reputation.)
To be necessarily skeptical of all things, at all times. Understand that the search for "truth" is a journey, not a destination.
I would really have to think about who is less biased, the SPLC or the ADL.