This seems like a very bad idea to me. It creates a schism with two types of content, "news" and "opinion". How does one decide which is which? 90% of the articles I see posted are from news...
This seems like a very bad idea to me. It creates a schism with two types of content, "news" and "opinion". How does one decide which is which? 90% of the articles I see posted are from news organizations that are really just opinion bloggers. This goes for CNN as much as it goes for Fox News.
If someone's opinion is empirically and demonstrably false or based on incorrect information, it should be fact checked just like a traditional news piece.
It's a blurry line that's just going to lead to even more confusion.
Agree. While I can see a legitimate case for satire being exempted, anything exempted from this fact-checker should definitely have some prominent warnings to indicate that they are exempted....
Agree. While I can see a legitimate case for satire being exempted, anything exempted from this fact-checker should definitely have some prominent warnings to indicate that they are exempted.
Especially since so many people don't seem to "get" satire.
My first reaction was that they should just put a satire tag on that type of post/article. But then I immediately realized that would probably defeat the point of satire... But I can't tell you...
Especially since so many people don't seem to "get" satire.
My first reaction was that they should just put a satire tag on that type of post/article. But then I immediately realized that would probably defeat the point of satire...
But I can't tell you how many people I see share Onion articles as real things. They usually get deleted pretty quickly after the first comment explains what The Onion is.
This seems like a very bad idea to me. It creates a schism with two types of content, "news" and "opinion". How does one decide which is which? 90% of the articles I see posted are from news organizations that are really just opinion bloggers. This goes for CNN as much as it goes for Fox News.
If someone's opinion is empirically and demonstrably false or based on incorrect information, it should be fact checked just like a traditional news piece.
It's a blurry line that's just going to lead to even more confusion.
Agree. While I can see a legitimate case for satire being exempted, anything exempted from this fact-checker should definitely have some prominent warnings to indicate that they are exempted.
Especially since so many people don't seem to "get" satire.
My first reaction was that they should just put a satire tag on that type of post/article. But then I immediately realized that would probably defeat the point of satire...
But I can't tell you how many people I see share Onion articles as real things. They usually get deleted pretty quickly after the first comment explains what The Onion is.
Sad thing is? Many Onion articles from 3,4, and 5 years ago are accurate stories today, if you change the date.