185

Because of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (emphasis mine) ...


78

While the presumption is that most of the stories are disliked rather than false, note that some of the stories have been false. The New York Times reported that there was a pattern of communications between the Donald Trump campaign and Russian officials. The FBI told the White House that they have not found that. Yes, we only know this from the White ...


75

The fact that an entity is not directly running in an election does not mean in any way that it might not see as favourable, and thus prefer, an outcome over the other. Particularly it is mostly understood that a divided EU (starting with Brexit) is beneficial to the interests of Moscow: Crisis in the EU is a blessing for Moscow: Without the U.K. — ...


65

Apart from the legality, your assumptions are wrong. You assume that there is a thing that can objectively be called "fake news", and that it comprises of stories containing false facts which can be disproven by fact-checking. This is not the definition of "fake news" that Trump is using. Looking through his Twitter feed, we can see that he describes ...


39

Because, contrary to popular but wholly opinionated answer that was already posted: Americans don't necessarily consider CNN and especially NYT as universally "credible". A majority of Americans believe news organizations are too critical of President Trump, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released Sunday. 51% of Americans said ...


35

There's no standardized way but there are a few well established ones. And note that there are two hidden questions in your question. The first is: whether a piece of news is factual? The other one is: whether it's being spun as something it's not? For the factual bit, a proxy is whether the piece of news got picked up by a well established news outlet. ...


33

It is impossible to be entirely objective in this. However some general themes are reasonable: A mix of sources is likely to be more balance than a single source. You should mix both Left and Right wing with fact/analysis/opinion. You should be aware of the general bias of the source To help you there is the Media bias chart. Now this is only one ...


30

The underlying political theory behind the First Amendment protection of the media mentioned in the other answer is that the governments and courts cannot be trusted to determine what is and is not true outside of the context of commercial speech where there is substantial regulation of untrue claims. It is basically an epistomological position that ...


21

Since you ask about the situation around the world, as an example of such a law (kind of) the UK has the Representation of the People Act 1983 which among other clauses has: 106 (1) A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which— (a) before or during an election, (b) for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the ...


19

Let's look at the Wikipedia definitions first. Fake news is false or misleading information presented as news. It often has the aim of damaging the reputation of a person or entity, or making money through advertising revenue. Source: Wikipedia Dissent is an opinion, philosophy or sentiment of non-agreement or opposition to a prevailing idea or policy ...


17

The problem of left/right ratings given by various sources is threefold: They refer to the US definition of left right, which differs significantly from the definition in whichever country you're from. Their accuracy is not perfect, and they may be outdated. Being "in between" two ideologies (focus on equal coverage and perceived fairness) and ...


16

The campaign against Breitbart organised by among others the Twitter account Sleeping Giants may qualify. Breitbart lost approximately 90% of their advertisers over a three month period in 2017 and have not yet recovered. They have also since then lost about 75% of their readership. The boycott was explicitly motivated by accusations of spreading fake news ...


15

EDIT: disclaimer in response to comments below questioning my motivation or ascribing partisanship to the way I have approached this question: My answer is not intended as an apologia for Trump; in fact the Trump administration is also clearly guilty of using the exact same techniques of misdirection, reframing, and appeal to emotion. My answer only intended ...


15

To add to the other answers, here's a media bias chart created by AllSides: They run comparisons of current news from multiple perspectives on their tri-column news feed and Perspectives Blog. You can read more about their partners and funding here.


14

I think it's important to understand the origin of "fake news" first, and Trump's use of "deflection" second. First, fake news was originally almost a wholly right wing concoction. Take for example the reports of Hillary Clinton's seizures, [1],[2], and the vicious story accusing her and others of being members of a child sex ring run out of the pizzeria, ...


14

The reporter was Jim Acosta A CNN reporter in the audience attempted to ask a follow-up question, but Mr. Trump repeatedly shut him down. “No, not you, your organization is terrible. Quiet. Quiet,” he said. As the reporter continued trying to ask a question, talking over another reporter, Mr. Trump continued: “Don’t be rude. Don’t be rude. Don’t. Be. Rude. ...


12

The question title says the NYT is "reputable." That's debatable. There is a long laundry list of reasons to disagree. I'll look in depth at one -- their coverage of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax. Here is the worst of the worst of their coverage. Keep in mind that this article was written four months after it was publicly known that there was ATM video of ...


11

The traditional networks were (and still are, I presume) broadcast as radio transmissions from stations either owned by the network or affiliated with them. The FCC issues licenses for that. However, the FCC has to have a very good reason to revoke a broadcast license, more than an aggrieved president. Any such action would be subject to the judgment of a ...


11

Attorneys General of 47 states sent a letter to Congress in July of 2013 recommending that the civil and criminal immunity in Section 230 be removed. So there is broad support for doing something to address internet companies' responsibilities, but it is hard to find agreement on what should be done. The ACLU came out in opposition to weakening the law's ...


11

The journalist has (probably) committed libel, which is (mostly) not a crime in the US but can result in civil liability (i.e. B could sue the journalist). Since A and the journalist conspired to produce this fake news, they would likely share in this liability (assuming B can prove they acted in concert). To establish a case of libel or defamation in the US,...


11

This is genuinely hard to do. The Trump presidency has certainly polarized news reporting to the point where few US news outlets have any semblance of neutrality. This is certainly true on the right side of things, with channels like Fox. But CNN, to take just one example, is not averse to embellishing the facts. To take the example of the "Covid ...


11

Journalism done well falls into three basic categories (setting aside arts and interest pieces for the purposes of this discussion): News proper: This reports factual events without much interpretation or exposition. This happened today in that place; someone will be in town tomorrow evening for an event; these people in Congress said such and such... ...


10

I think there are different ways: based on disproving content, based on analysing content of loads of messages, and based on how they are spread. Fake news As the name says, it's fake, so proving it's fake is the obvious way to apply that label. How this is done depends on the type of fake news. If a statement tries to present a fact, then it may be easy to ...


9

Yes, it seems that the author of the article is just completely incorrect, as the Obama administration produced a national security strategy in 2010 and 2015. However, we can't say whether or not they're lying, because it's possible they didn't do any basic research and thus aren't intentionally making a false statement. National Security Strategies: The ...


9

Is the website it is on trustworthy? If someone shares an article on a news outlet you haven't heard of yet, it might be useful to take a look at the frontpage. If all the articles appear to have a very obvious one-sided political slant or even go into conspiracy theory territory, you might be reading a fake-news or propaganda website. Or it might even not ...


8

It is important to understand bias when consuming media. For example, 5 corporations, AT&T, Comcast, Disney, ViacomCBS, and Fox control 90% of our media. For this reason, both nominally Left and Right sources tend to have a pro-corporate bias. For this reason, I prefer independent media such as the Grayzone. However, others have their own viewpoints and ...


7

Yes, the Lords in the UK did debate this in January of 2018. From parliament.uk: Lords debates online news and content publishers Members of the Lords, including a former government digital champion and the shadow spokesperson for digital, culture, media and sport, debated the role played by social media and online platforms as news and content ...


7

They do publish rebuttals from time to time. You can search for rebuttal site:gov.uk and see some. However, I'm not aware of any rebuttals to journalists' (or indeed anyone else's) tweets. Sky's Ed Conway tweeted: Never seen the Government issue a rebuttal to a Twitter thread. Let alone devoting nearly 3,000 words to it. ⁦@pmdfoster ⁩ has clearly hit a ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible