Are we all getting a bit tired of the term fake news? How is it actually defined? Didn't it used to be called hoaxes or propaganda?
Pope Francis has publicly verbalized it is a sin. Sounds to me like the sociopath, narcissistic guy south of the border uses that term whenever he hears a news report that he doesn't like.
He is constantly trashing the news media. He insists that it is the enemy of the people. Methinks that he should take time and read his constitution.
I have never heard that expression until that strange man started using it. Fake news for me is when the leader of another country announces how dreadful things are in Sweden, even talking about a terrorist attack the night before. This was simply the fake news he accuses others of.
There is something called exaggerated news like that which one would read in the tabloids.
Much of that may have a grain of truth but is often exacerbated.
Many years ago, a headline in a local paper read that film commissioner Sara Shaak and Ben Affleck announced their engagement. All one had to do was look at a calendar to see that it was April 1. Many fools believed that tidbit. Sara still gets ribbed about it. It was all in fun.
I know that reputable newspapers have a high standard.
Journalists have a responsibility to be honest and transparent and print facts. On occasion, there is a mistake made and usually the next day a correction notice is published.
Let's not confuse opinion with fake news. For example, if I was to announce that Jim Pattison is building a performing arts centre in Prince George, that would be fake news. However, if I said that in my opinion it would be lovely if Jim Pattison did this, it would just be an opinion.
Much of the news is entertaining. Take satire. I never miss Stephen Colbert, a night time talk show host.
He is very entertaining and does have fun with the news. He is very opinionated.
But Jon Stewart will always be the best in my book.
We have many choices in terms of how we get news. There does seem to be more fake news since social media joined the fray.
There are specific sites that are clearly untrue news. I cannot figure out why there would be an attraction to these. Maybe I am too old school.
Walter Cronkite must be rolling over in his grave. He was considered the most honest man in media. How would he handle this dilemma?
Fake news, alternative truth, whatever the issue, it's important to know the difference between what is actually real and what is not. By no means should one give up, but know your reputable sources.
This whole mess is a reflection of where social media has been going over the last decade.
All you have to do is spend a half an hour and read the comment section after a news report on the internet.
We now have a world leader who cannot abandon that environment and act the way a president needs to act on the world stage. Personal attacks do not belong in the political arena in the nuclear age.
