When was the first time you heard the term \u201cfake news\u201d? For me it was right after last year\u2019s presidential election.<\/p>\n
I feel like I consume a great deal of both political and business news, and for me this was a term that I had not heard in the mainstream media narrative prior to the election.<\/p>\n
Immediately after the election, it appeared as though top party leaders had a new talking point: fake news. The intent seemed to begin a new narrative about how \u201cmedia\u201d or \u201dnews\u201d needed to be run through an appointed truth filter. Now to me that is scary stuff.<\/p>\n
Some in the political spectrum began applying the term to what is generally called the mainstream media. Within days of the discussion of vetting the \u201ctruthiness\u201d of Facebook posts, the conversation pivoted to the mainstream media being called out as fake news. CNN, NYT, AP \u2013 you name the organization \u2013 it was now being classified as fake news by some.<\/p>\n
I was thinking about an old George Carlin line when writing this: \u201cBipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out.\u201d<\/p>\n
These days, it seems nothing is bipartisan. Everything appears to be \u201chyper-partisan.\u201d In this environment, my opinion has become that everything is a deception of some kind.<\/p>\n
Some media outlets are more obvious in their methodology and ethos and political leanings, while some others are less obvious, even though there still may be an intent behind what is presented. Does anyone consume the 6 p.m. news anymore? I don\u2019t because it seems that more and more they tend to be leaning toward the ends of the spectrum.<\/p>\n
For years it seems like the division between editorial\/political opinion and news has been breaking down. What happened to the days of news coverage such as when Tim Russert hosted Meet the Press<\/em>? Call me nostalgic, but when I watched Russert I felt he equally grilled both sides, and I could never really tell where he stood ideologically.<\/p>\n Even if you look at content aggregators such as the Drudge Report, you still have to understand that everything presented has a purpose. I do not put Drudge in this category, but some of the worst news out there these days is on aggregation click-bait sites.<\/p>\n I decided a while back that I would consume a good portion of my news from people I felt were intelligent, antithetical ideologically and obvious in their presentation \u2013 such as Rush Limbaugh and Rachel Maddow.<\/p>\n Why? Pretty simple really: to understand the other point of view, get information not generally put forth by the other side, and gain insight into narrative creation. Even though it makes me want to throw things at the screen sometimes, it is more beneficial to articulate your opposition as opposed to nodding in agreement.<\/p>\n If you can always be looking for and questioning the motivation behind the news, understand the social narrative they are trying to create, read the tea leaves, think for yourself, and articulate a position, I believe that you will be much better off.<\/p>\n I think that informed people need to look at what is labeled as alternate news now, as well. Zero Hedge<\/em>, WikiLeaks, Mother Jones,<\/em> and Vice<\/em> to name a few. I do not believe that the intentions of these organizations are any more pure than mainstream organizations, but I do believe that I see news here that I will not see anywhere else.<\/p>\n RT, the Russian 24-hour English news channel, is considered by many as a propaganda arm of the Russian government. But does that mean their content should not be consumed? As long as I understand who owns RT, can\u2019t I watch and still learn things? I have seen some of the best economic reporting out there on RT in the past few years.<\/p>\n