Thank God for the Americans! Strange words to be uttering at this time, and yet within the space of three years their mighty image-making machine, Hollywood, has produced two masterpieces sheeting home to us all the indispensability of a free press.

In an age of so-called &ldquo;fake news&rdquo; and &ldquo;alternative facts&rdquo;, these stand as a signal reminder of what true news looks like, and how it can &ndash; must &ndash; be produced in the teeth of opposition from vested interests and government power.

The first of these was Spotlight, the story of how The Boston Globe ripped the lid off a decades-long cover-up by the Boston Catholic diocese of child sexual abuse by its priests. It won the Oscar for best picture in 2016.

The second, recently released in Australia, is The Post. It is the story of how The Washington Post came to publish the Pentagon Papers, the highly classified secret documents that showed successive US presidents from Truman to Nixon lying to the people about American policy in Indo-China and the disastrous course of the Vietnam War.

<figure><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nrXlY6gzTTM?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" width="440"></iframe></figure>

&nbsp;

It is also the story of how Katharine Graham, widow of the Post&rsquo;s publisher, Phil Graham, was forced to grow into the role of a publisher prepared to run the story in the face of serious legal threats, possible financial ruin and loss of old friendships with rich and powerful people.

It was not a role that came easily to Kay Graham (played by Meryl Streep). In her Pulitzer Prize-winning memoirs, published in 1997, she wrote frankly of how unprepared she was for the role forced upon her by her husband&rsquo;s suicide.

She was the daughter of a wealthy New York businessman who had bought the Post at a bankruptcy auction in 1933. When she married the brilliant but later seriously ill Phil Graham, her father devolved the role of publisher upon him, not her. Her job was to bring up the children and add lustre to the family&rsquo;s social position. The film conveys this background economically and convincingly.

It is equally convincing in its depiction of power: newspaper power, legal power and government power. Richard Nixon is in the White House. In an early scene, H.R. Haldeman, Nixon&rsquo;s chief of staff and notorious bully, rings Graham to try to have a particular Post reporter banned from covering the wedding of one of Nixon&rsquo;s daughters because the president didn&rsquo;t like her portrayal of the daughter in an earlier article.

Graham, still finding her feet, looks for ways to accommodate this. She asks the editor, Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks), if perhaps another reporter could be assigned. But all this is swamped when, on the morning the Post runs a front-page picture of the wedding, it has the pants scooped off it by The New York Times, which has splashed the initial tranche of the Pentagon Papers.

In the flurry to catch up, a Post reporter, Ben Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk), who was to have a distinguished career on the paper and later at the Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, tracks down the Times&rsquo; source, Daniel Ellsberg.

<figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202527/original/file-20180118-80165-8kheml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202527/original/file-20180118-80165-8kheml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" /></a>

<figcaption>Editors at The Washington Post contemplate what to do with the explosive Pentagon Papers. IMDB</figcaption>
</figure>

&nbsp;

In circumstances of confidentiality and anonymity, Ellsberg hands him more than 4,000 additional pages from the Pentagon Papers. This confronts Bagdikian, Bradlee, Graham and The Washington Post Company itself with a series of acute ethical, legal and financial dilemmas.

The White House has obtained a court order restraining The New York Times from publishing any more of the papers. The Post&rsquo;s lawyers advise that if the source for both newspapers is the same, the Post would be in contempt of court should it publish the new material.

At this stage it seems that no one at the Post except Bagdikian knows Ellsberg&rsquo;s identity, and it is a cardinal principle of journalism that the identity of a confidential source must be protected in all circumstances. One of the lawyers pressures Bagdikian to reveal his source. He refuses to name names but concedes that it is &ldquo;very likely&rdquo; to be the same as the Times&rsquo;.

Graham and Bradlee then face the prospect of being imprisoned for contempt. To make matters worse, the company has just been floated on the stock exchange, and the jailing of the publisher and editor might provide grounds on which the bankers behind the float could withdraw. The company&rsquo;s future and that of the newspaper and all the staff are on the line.

For Graham there is a personal complication. She is a close friend of Robert McNamara who, as defence secretary, had commissioned the writing of the Pentagon Papers for historical purposes. This friendship now threatens to compromise her. She goes to McNamara and tells him she has a difficult decision to make concerning the papers. She does not tell him what it is because at that stage she does not know herself.

The money men and board members advising Graham urge her not to publish because of the possible impact on the float. Bradlee urges the opposite, saying if the Post caves in to government pressure over this, it will betray its role of holding governments to account.

When Graham makes the decision to &ldquo;go&rdquo;, she quietly confronts the condescension of her board &ndash; all male grandees &ndash; by reminding them that it is her company. Her metamorphosis into a courageous publisher is complete.

And now the power of the press is arrestingly depicted. It is 1971. Linotype machines clatter away setting the body type; banner headlines are set by hand in a Ludlow stick. In the press room, the towering press units are webbed up waiting for the word. Finally Bradlee rings through. The huge presses begin to roll and in a half-darkened newsroom Bagdikian can hear their hammering rhythm.

In the White House next morning an enraged Nixon orders that the Post is to be banned from the premises. It will avail him little. The film closes with shadowy figures moving about the Democratic Party campaign headquarters in a hotel called Watergate, hinting at the scandal that would ultimately lead to Nixon&rsquo;s resignation.

<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90379/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" width="1" />For people interested in the workings of democracy, in the ethical dilemmas of journalism, in a dramatic historical event that reinvigorated the ideal of a free press, or in drawing parallels with recent events surrounding the Trump White House, this is a film not to be missed.

&nbsp;

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" rel="nofollow" target="blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/in-the-post-hollywood-reminds-us-what-true-news-should-look-like-90379" rel="nofollow" target="blank">original article</a>.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;&nbsp;

The Post is the story of how The Washington Post came to publish the Pentagon Papers, the highly classified secret documents that showed successive US presidents from Truman to Nixon lying to the people about American policy in Indo-China and the disastrous course of the Vietnam War.

Thank God for the Americans! Strange words to be uttering at this time, and yet within the space of three years their mighty image-making machine, Hollywood, has produced two masterpieces sheeting home to us all the indispensability of a free press. In an age of so-called “fake news” and “alternative facts”, these stand as a signal reminder of what true news looks like, and how it can – must – be produced in the teeth of opposition from vested interests and government power. The first of these was Spotlight, the story of how The Boston Globe ripped the lid off a decades-long cover-up by the Boston Catholic diocese of child sexual abuse by its priests. It won the Oscar for best picture in 2016. The second, recently released in Australia, is The Post. It is the story of how The Washington Post came to publish the Pentagon Papers, the highly classified secret documents that showed successive US presidents from Truman to Nixon lying to the people about American policy in Indo-China and the disastrous course of the Vietnam War. It is also the story of how Katharine Graham, widow of the Post’s publisher, Phil Graham, was forced to grow into the role of a publisher prepared to run the story in the face of serious legal threats, possible financial ruin and loss of old friendships with rich and powerful people. It was not a role that came easily to Kay Graham (played by Meryl Streep). In her Pulitzer Prize-winning memoirs, published in 1997, she wrote frankly of how unprepared she was for the role forced upon her by her husband’s suicide. She was the daughter of a wealthy New York businessman who had bought the Post at a bankruptcy auction in 1933. When she married the brilliant but later seriously ill Phil Graham, her father devolved the role of publisher upon him, not her. Her job was to bring up the children and add lustre to the family’s social position. The film conveys this background economically and convincingly. It is equally convincing in its depiction of power: newspaper power, legal power and government power. Richard Nixon is in the White House. In an early scene, H.R. Haldeman, Nixon’s chief of staff and notorious bully, rings Graham to try to have a particular Post reporter banned from covering the wedding of one of Nixon’s daughters because the president didn’t like her portrayal of the daughter in an earlier article. Graham, still finding her feet, looks for ways to accommodate this. She asks the editor, Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks), if perhaps another reporter could be assigned. But all this is swamped when, on the morning the Post runs a front-page picture of the wedding, it has the pants scooped off it by The New York Times, which has splashed the initial tranche of the Pentagon Papers. In the flurry to catch up, a Post reporter, Ben Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk), who was to have a distinguished career on the paper and later at the Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, tracks down the Times’ source, Daniel Ellsberg. Editors at The Washington Post contemplate what to do with the explosive Pentagon Papers. IMDB In circumstances of confidentiality and anonymity, Ellsberg hands him more than 4,000 additional pages from the Pentagon Papers. This confronts Bagdikian, Bradlee, Graham and The Washington Post Company itself with a series of acute ethical, legal and financial dilemmas. The White House has obtained a court order restraining The New York Times from publishing any more of the papers. The Post’s lawyers advise that if the source for both newspapers is the same, the Post would be in contempt of court should it publish the new material. At this stage it seems that no one at the Post except Bagdikian knows Ellsberg’s identity, and it is a cardinal principle of journalism that the identity of a confidential source must be protected in all circumstances. One of the lawyers pressures Bagdikian to reveal his source. He refuses to name names but concedes that it is “very likely” to be the same as the Times’. Graham and Bradlee then face the prospect of being imprisoned for contempt. To make matters worse, the company has just been floated on the stock exchange, and the jailing of the publisher and editor might provide grounds on which the bankers behind the float could withdraw. The company’s future and that of the newspaper and all the staff are on the line. For Graham there is a personal complication. She is a close friend of Robert McNamara who, as defence secretary, had commissioned the writing of the Pentagon Papers for historical purposes. This friendship now threatens to compromise her. She goes to McNamara and tells him she has a difficult decision to make concerning the papers. She does not tell him what it is because at that stage she does not know herself. The money men and board members advising Graham urge her not to publish because of the possible impact on the float. Bradlee urges the opposite, saying if the Post caves in to government pressure over this, it will betray its role of holding governments to account. When Graham makes the decision to “go”, she quietly confronts the condescension of her board – all male grandees – by reminding them that it is her company. Her metamorphosis into a courageous publisher is complete. And now the power of the press is arrestingly depicted. It is 1971. Linotype machines clatter away setting the body type; banner headlines are set by hand in a Ludlow stick. In the press room, the towering press units are webbed up waiting for the word. Finally Bradlee rings through. The huge presses begin to roll and in a half-darkened newsroom Bagdikian can hear their hammering rhythm. In the White House next morning an enraged Nixon orders that the Post is to be banned from the premises. It will avail him little. The film closes with shadowy figures moving about the Democratic Party campaign headquarters in a hotel called Watergate, hinting at the scandal that would ultimately lead to Nixon’s resignation. For people interested in the workings of democracy, in the ethical dilemmas of journalism, in a dramatic historical event that reinvigorated the ideal of a free press, or in drawing parallels with recent events surrounding the Trump White House, this is a film not to be missed. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: In The Post, Hollywood reminds us what true news should look like

Pope Francis on Wednesday condemned the &ldquo;evil&rdquo; of fake news, saying journalists and social media users should shun and unmask manipulative &ldquo;snake tactics&rdquo; that foment division to serve political and economic interests.

&ldquo;Fake news is a sign of intolerant and hypersensitive attitudes, and leads only to the spread of arrogance and hatred. That is the end result of untruth,&rdquo; Francis said in the first document by a pope on the subject.

It was issued after months of debate on how much fake news may have influenced the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign and the election of President Donald Trump.

The document, called &ldquo;The truth will set you free - Fake news and journalism for peace&rdquo;, was issued in advance of the Catholic Church&rsquo;s World Day of Social Communications on May 13.

&ldquo;Spreading fake news can serve to advance specific goals, influence political decisions, and serve economic interests,&rdquo; the pope writes, condemning the &ldquo;manipulative use of social networks&rdquo; and other forms of communication.

&ldquo;This false but believable news is &lsquo;captious&rsquo;, inasmuch as it grasps people&rsquo;s attention by appealing to stereotypes and common social prejudices, and exploiting instantaneous emotions like anxiety, contempt, anger and frustration,&rdquo; he said.

False stories spread so quickly that even authoritative denials often could not contain the damage done and many people run the risk of becoming &ldquo;unwilling accomplices in spreading biased and baseless ideas&rdquo;, he said.

He called for &ldquo;education for truth&rdquo; that would help people discern, evaluate and understand news in order to recognise the &ldquo;sly and dangerous form of seduction that worms its way into the heart with false and alluring arguments&rdquo;.

Francis compared the use of fake news to the Bible story of the devil, who, disguised as a serpent, persuaded Eve to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree. He said she was fed wrong information by Satan.

&ldquo;We need to unmask what could be called the &lsquo;snake-tactics&rsquo; used by those (purveyors of fake news) who disguise themselves in order to strike at any time and place,&rdquo; he said.

He said the role of journalists was &ldquo;not just a job, it is a mission&rdquo; and they had particular responsibility to stem fake news.

&ldquo;Amid feeding frenzies and the mad rush for a scoop, they must remember that the heart of information is not the speed with which it is reported or its audience impact, but persons,&rdquo; he said. He said journalism should be &ldquo;less concentrated on breaking news than on exploring the underlying causes of conflicts ... a journalism committed to pointing out alternatives to the escalation of shouting matches and verbal violence.&rdquo;&nbsp;

'Fake news is a sign of intolerant and hypersensitive attitudes, and leads only to the spread of arrogance and hatred. That is the end result of untruth,' Francis said in the first document by a pope on the subject.

Pope Francis on Wednesday condemned the “evil” of fake news, saying journalists and social media users should shun and unmask manipulative “snake tactics” that foment division to serve political and economic interests. “Fake news is a sign of intolerant and hypersensitive attitudes, and leads only to the spread of arrogance and hatred. That is the end result of untruth,” Francis said in the first document by a pope on the subject. It was issued after months of debate on how much fake news may have influenced the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign and the election of President Donald Trump. The document, called “The truth will set you free - Fake news and journalism for peace”, was issued in advance of the Catholic Church’s World Day of Social Communications on May 13. “Spreading fake news can serve to advance specific goals, influence political decisions, and serve economic interests,” the pope writes, condemning the “manipulative use of social networks” and other forms of communication. “This false but believable news is ‘captious’, inasmuch as it grasps people’s attention by appealing to stereotypes and common social prejudices, and exploiting instantaneous emotions like anxiety, contempt, anger and frustration,” he said. False stories spread so quickly that even authoritative denials often could not contain the damage done and many people run the risk of becoming “unwilling accomplices in spreading biased and baseless ideas”, he said. He called for “education for truth” that would help people discern, evaluate and understand news in order to recognise the “sly and dangerous form of seduction that worms its way into the heart with false and alluring arguments”. Francis compared the use of fake news to the Bible story of the devil, who, disguised as a serpent, persuaded Eve to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree. He said she was fed wrong information by Satan. “We need to unmask what could be called the ‘snake-tactics’ used by those (purveyors of fake news) who disguise themselves in order to strike at any time and place,” he said. He said the role of journalists was “not just a job, it is a mission” and they had particular responsibility to stem fake news. “Amid feeding frenzies and the mad rush for a scoop, they must remember that the heart of information is not the speed with which it is reported or its audience impact, but persons,” he said. He said journalism should be “less concentrated on breaking news than on exploring the underlying causes of conflicts ... a journalism committed to pointing out alternatives to the escalation of shouting matches and verbal violence.”

Pope condemns 'evil' of fake news and its use for political gain

President Trump took to Twitter to reveal the &quot;Fake News Awards&quot; linking it to a published article on the Republican Party&#39;s website - gop.com which crashed minutes after he made his revelation.

The &quot;highly-anticipated&quot; list, as the headline said included names of famous media houses including The New York Times, CNN, ABC News, Washinton Post among others.

In the article headlined: &quot;The Highly-Anticipated 2017 Fake News Awards&quot;, the ranking was as follows: 1. The New York Times 2: ABC News&nbsp;3: CNN&nbsp; 4:&nbsp;TIME&nbsp; 5: Washington Post&nbsp; 6: CNN 7: CNN on reporting about Anthony Scaramucci&rsquo;s meeting with a Russian 8: Newsweek&nbsp;9: &nbsp;CNN on reporting ex-FBI director James Comey 10: New York Times.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
And the FAKE NEWS winners are...<a href="https://t.co/59G6x2f7fD">https://t.co/59G6x2f7fD</a>
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/953794085751574534?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 18, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

At the end, the article said, &quot;last but not the least&quot;, &quot;RUSSIA COLLUSION!&quot; Russian collusion is perhaps the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people. THERE IS NO COLLUSION!

The GOP article took digs at journalists belonging to the The New York Times&rsquo; Paul Krugman and ABC News&#39; Brian Ross.

The article said Paul Krugman had claimed &quot;on the day of President Trump&rsquo;s historic, landslide victory that the economy would never recover&quot; underlying at the end that the &quot;media spent 90% of the time focused on negative coverage or fake news&quot;.

The GOP article took digs at journalists belonging to the The New York Times’ Paul Krugman and ABC News' Brian Ross.

President Trump took to Twitter to reveal the "Fake News Awards" linking it to a published article on the Republican Party's website - gop.com which crashed minutes after he made his revelation. The "highly-anticipated" list, as the headline said included names of famous media houses including The New York Times, CNN, ABC News, Washinton Post among others. In the article headlined: "The Highly-Anticipated 2017 Fake News Awards", the ranking was as follows: 1. The New York Times 2: ABC News 3: CNN 4: TIME 5: Washington Post 6: CNN 7: CNN on reporting about Anthony Scaramucci’s meeting with a Russian 8: Newsweek 9: CNN on reporting ex-FBI director James Comey 10: New York Times. And the FAKE NEWS winners are...https://t.co/59G6x2f7fD — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 18, 2018 × At the end, the article said, "last but not the least", "RUSSIA COLLUSION!" Russian collusion is perhaps the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people. THERE IS NO COLLUSION! The GOP article took digs at journalists belonging to the The New York Times’ Paul Krugman and ABC News' Brian Ross. The article said Paul Krugman had claimed "on the day of President Trump’s historic, landslide victory that the economy would never recover" underlying at the end that the "media spent 90% of the time focused on negative coverage or fake news".

President Trump unveils 'Fake News Award'; takes dig at NYT, CNN, ABC

President Donald Trump on Monday denied a New York Times story on his daily White House life that says he watches up to eight hours of cable TV news a day.

&quot;Another false story, this time in the Failing @nytimes, that I watch 4-8 hours of television a day - Wrong!&quot; the US president wrote on Twitter.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Another false story, this time in the Failing <a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@nytimes</a>, that I watch 4-8 hours of television a day - Wrong! Also, I seldom, if ever, watch CNN or MSNBC, both of which I consider Fake News. I never watch Don Lemon, who I once called the &ldquo;dumbest man on television!&rdquo; Bad Reporting.
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/940223974985871360?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 11, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&quot;Also, I seldom, if ever, watch CNN or MSNBC, both of which I consider Fake News,&quot; he added.

Trump then described CNN news anchor Don Lemon as a person &quot;I once called the &#39;dumbest man on television!&#39;&quot;

A lengthy New York Times story over the weekend, citing sources close to the president, says that Trump gets up early in the morning and immediately tunes into the cable TV news and commentary shows.

The former New York real estate magnate often fires off early morning tweets that react to cable TV news stories, often those on Fox News.

Trump, 71, is sensitive to criticism on the subject.

&quot;I do not watch much television,&quot; Trump told reporters on his recent trip to Vietnam.

&quot;I know they like to say -- people that don&#39;t know me -- they like to say I watch television. People with fake sources -- you know, fake reporters, fake sources. But I don&#39;t get to watch much television, primarily because of documents. I&#39;m reading documents a lot.&quot;

Later in the trip he complained that the only US cable TV news available to watch in the Philippines was CNN.

The allegation had been made by the New York Times

President Donald Trump on Monday denied a New York Times story on his daily White House life that says he watches up to eight hours of cable TV news a day. "Another false story, this time in the Failing @nytimes, that I watch 4-8 hours of television a day - Wrong!" the US president wrote on Twitter. Another false story, this time in the Failing @nytimes, that I watch 4-8 hours of television a day - Wrong! Also, I seldom, if ever, watch CNN or MSNBC, both of which I consider Fake News. I never watch Don Lemon, who I once called the “dumbest man on television!” Bad Reporting. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 11, 2017 × "Also, I seldom, if ever, watch CNN or MSNBC, both of which I consider Fake News," he added. Trump then described CNN news anchor Don Lemon as a person "I once called the 'dumbest man on television!'" A lengthy New York Times story over the weekend, citing sources close to the president, says that Trump gets up early in the morning and immediately tunes into the cable TV news and commentary shows. The former New York real estate magnate often fires off early morning tweets that react to cable TV news stories, often those on Fox News. Trump, 71, is sensitive to criticism on the subject. "I do not watch much television," Trump told reporters on his recent trip to Vietnam. "I know they like to say -- people that don't know me -- they like to say I watch television. People with fake sources -- you know, fake reporters, fake sources. But I don't get to watch much television, primarily because of documents. I'm reading documents a lot." Later in the trip he complained that the only US cable TV news available to watch in the Philippines was CNN.

Trump says he does not watch 4-8 hours of TV every day

&nbsp;A Washington Post reporter today had to tender an apology after US President Donald Trump asked him to do so for posting an erroneous tweet about his rally in Florida.

Dave Weigel, who covers politics for the newspaper, had posted a picture on his Twitter account which showed an empty arena when Trump was addressing a public meeting.

Trump, in a tweet, said, &quot;Weigel put out a phony photo of an empty arena hours before he arrived at the venue, with thousands of people outside, on their way in. Real photos now shown as I spoke. Packed house, many people unable to get in. Demand apology &amp; retraction from FAKE NEWS WaPo!&quot; said the US President as he posted pictures of the event.

Weigel apologised within minutes, and tweeted, &quot;Sure thing: I apologise. I deleted the photo after David Martosko of Daily Mail told me I&#39;d gotten it wrong. Was confused by the image of you walking in the bottom right corner.&quot;

Despite Weigel&#39;s apology, Trump in a follow-up tweet demanded that he be fired.

&quot;Weigel of the Washington Post just admitted that his picture was a FAKE (fraud?) showing an almost empty arena last night for my speech in Pensacola when, in fact, he knew the arena was packed (as shown also on TV). FAKE NEWS, he should be fired,&quot; he said.

Early in the morning, Trump targeted CNN for its alleged inaccurate reporting.

&quot;Fake News CNN made a vicious and purposeful mistake yesterday. They were caught red handed, just like lonely Brian Ross at ABC News (who should be immediately fired for his &quot;mistake&quot;). Watch to see if @CNN fires those responsible, or was it just gross incompetence?&quot; he asked.

CNN, in another tweet, he said, is the &quot;least trusted name in news&quot;.

&quot;CNN&#39;s slogan is CNN, THE MOST TRUSTED NAME IN NEWS. Everyone knows this is not true, that this could, in fact, be a fraud on the American Public. There are many outlets that are far more trusted than Fake News CNN. Their slogan should be CNN, THE LEAST TRUSTED NAME IN NEWS!&quot; said the US President.

Trump has over 44 million followers on Twitter.&nbsp;

Dave Weigel, who covers politics for the newspaper, had posted a picture on his Twitter account which showed an empty arena when Trump was addressing a public meeting.

A Washington Post reporter today had to tender an apology after US President Donald Trump asked him to do so for posting an erroneous tweet about his rally in Florida. Dave Weigel, who covers politics for the newspaper, had posted a picture on his Twitter account which showed an empty arena when Trump was addressing a public meeting. Trump, in a tweet, said, "Weigel put out a phony photo of an empty arena hours before he arrived at the venue, with thousands of people outside, on their way in. Real photos now shown as I spoke. Packed house, many people unable to get in. Demand apology & retraction from FAKE NEWS WaPo!" said the US President as he posted pictures of the event. Weigel apologised within minutes, and tweeted, "Sure thing: I apologise. I deleted the photo after David Martosko of Daily Mail told me I'd gotten it wrong. Was confused by the image of you walking in the bottom right corner." Despite Weigel's apology, Trump in a follow-up tweet demanded that he be fired. "Weigel of the Washington Post just admitted that his picture was a FAKE (fraud?) showing an almost empty arena last night for my speech in Pensacola when, in fact, he knew the arena was packed (as shown also on TV). FAKE NEWS, he should be fired," he said. Early in the morning, Trump targeted CNN for its alleged inaccurate reporting. "Fake News CNN made a vicious and purposeful mistake yesterday. They were caught red handed, just like lonely Brian Ross at ABC News (who should be immediately fired for his "mistake"). Watch to see if @CNN fires those responsible, or was it just gross incompetence?" he asked. CNN, in another tweet, he said, is the "least trusted name in news". "CNN's slogan is CNN, THE MOST TRUSTED NAME IN NEWS. Everyone knows this is not true, that this could, in fact, be a fraud on the American Public. There are many outlets that are far more trusted than Fake News CNN. Their slogan should be CNN, THE LEAST TRUSTED NAME IN NEWS!" said the US President. Trump has over 44 million followers on Twitter.

Trump attacks Washington Post reporter for 'fake news', he apologises

China&#39;s military on Sunday launched a website inviting the public to report leaks and fake news, as well as illegal online activities by military personnel, the latest step in a push to ensure Communist Party control over the internet.

Beijing has been ramping up measures to secure the internet and maintain strict censorship, a process that accelerated ahead of the party&#39;s five-yearly National Congress that took place in October.

The new website is an effort to implement the guiding spirit of the Congress and will help maintain a &quot;clear internet space&quot; surrounding the military, according to 81.cn, the military&#39;s official news portal.

Citizens are encouraged to use the platform to report online content that attacks the military&#39;s absolute leadership and distorts the history of the military and the Communist Party, the website said.

Cases of military personnel illegally opening online social accounts and publishing unauthorized information should also be reported, it said.

President Xi Jinping has made China&#39;s &quot;cyber sovereignty&quot; a top priority in his sweeping campaign to bolster security. He has also reasserted the ruling Communist Party&#39;s role in limiting and guiding the online discussion.

China's military on Sunday launched a website inviting the public to report leaks and fake news, as well as illegal online activities by military personnel

China's military on Sunday launched a website inviting the public to report leaks and fake news, as well as illegal online activities by military personnel, the latest step in a push to ensure Communist Party control over the internet. Beijing has been ramping up measures to secure the internet and maintain strict censorship, a process that accelerated ahead of the party's five-yearly National Congress that took place in October. The new website is an effort to implement the guiding spirit of the Congress and will help maintain a "clear internet space" surrounding the military, according to 81.cn, the military's official news portal. Citizens are encouraged to use the platform to report online content that attacks the military's absolute leadership and distorts the history of the military and the Communist Party, the website said. Cases of military personnel illegally opening online social accounts and publishing unauthorized information should also be reported, it said. President Xi Jinping has made China's "cyber sovereignty" a top priority in his sweeping campaign to bolster security. He has also reasserted the ruling Communist Party's role in limiting and guiding the online discussion.

China military sets up website to report leaks, fake news

In the past week, Silicon Valley has faced renewed calls for greater regulation of social media platforms amid the growing scandal of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

Given rising awareness of the serious problems inherent within U.S. internet giants&rsquo; business models, it&rsquo;s an opportune time to discuss how best to regulate these companies.

I&rsquo;m a researcher who studies regulation on the internet. For my book, Chokepoints: Global Private Regulation on the Internet, I&rsquo;ve interviewed representatives from internet firms and their trade associations, along with policymakers in Canada and the U.S. in regards to what responsibility intermediaries should have for content on their platforms.

Internet intermediaries typically frame their opposition to legislation as protecting freedom of expression, but no right of speech is absolute. This debate is a battle over the control over information: What data should be collected and sold, what content should be permitted online, and who should decide?

Last week the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee grilled senior legal counsel for Facebook, Google and Twitter about their roles in Russian efforts to influence the U.S. election.

In a startling development, after months of denying and downplaying their responsibility, executives from each of the three companies grudgingly admitted that they had not yet determined the full extent of Russian activities on their platforms.

The executives&rsquo; testimony starkly reveals that the companies have few controls on the advertisements and so-called &ldquo;fake news&rdquo; that they accept on their platforms.

These candid admissions from the social media giants focus much-needed attention on the serious problems inherent in big intermediaries&rsquo; data-intensive business models.

Few safeguards, financial interest in status quo

As the U.S. election scandal shows, big social media platforms not only have few safeguards to prevent the deliberate manipulation of information, but they also have financial interests in maintaining the status quo. Unfettered flows of information and unconstrained advertising revenue are key to their business models. And this model is tremendously profitable.

Facebook&rsquo;s third-quarter profit was an astounding US$4.7 billion, the vast majority coming from advertisements relating to its 1.3 billion average daily users. Viral stories, whether factual or false, attract clicks and advertising revenue.

Given the seemingly intractable challenges of regulating social media platforms, what can be done? In the United States, three members of Congress have proposed a bipartisan response, the Honest Ads Act, that would require platforms to publish information about their advertisers and maintain a public archive of political advertisements.

This is a step in the right direction, and the Canadian government should consider similar measures in advance of the 2019 federal election. Facebook has already announced a program, the Canadian Election Integrity Initiative, to counter the spread of misinformation that focuses on media literacy and training.

Deliberate misinformation

While these projects appear useful, they likely will do little to address the underlying problem: The bad-faith spread of online misinformation. That&rsquo;s because the fundamental problem lies with Facebook&rsquo;s business model. Efforts to constrain the flow of information, especially information that generates advertising revenue, are contrary to their business model.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who initially dismissed claims of Russian interference as &ldquo;crazy&rdquo; just after the 2016 U.S. election, said on Nov. 1 that Facebook&rsquo;s new security features to counter so-called fake news will have a &ldquo;significant impact our profitability.&rdquo;

While the big platforms can afford to take a financial hit to restore their reputations and work to get rid of the worst offenders, they can&rsquo;t fully solve the problem without fundamentally changing how &mdash; and with whom &mdash; they do business.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/file-20171106-1017-774va4-20171117092609.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
Facebook ads linked to a Russian effort to stir tensions on divisive social issues during the U.S. election campaign. (AP)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

In response to what has become a fundamental challenge to the survival of liberal democracy, Facebook, Twitter and Google have all committed to voluntarily implementing measures to address the spread of misinformation and targeting accounts that troll other users with often bigoted, racist content.

Google, for example, is creating a public database of election advertising content that appears on its services. These companies prefer self-regulation to legislation and they&rsquo;ve lobbied the U.S Federal Election Commission in the past to have online political advertising exempt from disclosure. It&rsquo;s only the political pressure from the Senate inquiry that is forcing these platforms into action.

Internet companies, algorithms are black boxes

While these developments may seem like attempts by these major companies to be responsible, they amount to Google et al saying: &ldquo;Trust us to fix the problem we created.&rdquo;

However, while Google, Facebook and Twitter are all creating algorithms to, in the words of Zuckerberg, &ldquo;detect bad content and bad actors,&rdquo; these algorithms operate as so-called &ldquo;black boxes.&rdquo; This means that the criteria the algorithms use to make decisions are off-limits to public scrutiny.

Is &ldquo;trust us&rdquo; a good enough response, given the problem? With so much at stake, it may be time for a fundamental rethink of how these indispensable 21st-century companies are regulated and what they&rsquo;re allowed to do.

At the very minimum, governments and citizens should reconsider whether the lack of oversight into how these companies shape our speech rights is really in the public interest.

Social media platforms &ldquo;are an enabler of democracy,&rdquo; says Margrethe Vestager, the European Union&rsquo;s Commissioner for Competition, but we&rsquo;re seeing that &ldquo;they can also be used against our very basic beliefs in democracy.&rdquo;

It&rsquo;s time to start taking that threat to democracy seriously.

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" rel="nofollow" target="blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/regulate-social-media-platforms-before-its-too-late-86984" rel="nofollow" target="blank">original article</a>.

In a fight for the global flow of information, social media firms must be regulated. Their billions of dollars in revenue put their financial interests in conflict with truth and democracy

In the past week, Silicon Valley has faced renewed calls for greater regulation of social media platforms amid the growing scandal of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. Given rising awareness of the serious problems inherent within U.S. internet giants’ business models, it’s an opportune time to discuss how best to regulate these companies. I’m a researcher who studies regulation on the internet. For my book, Chokepoints: Global Private Regulation on the Internet, I’ve interviewed representatives from internet firms and their trade associations, along with policymakers in Canada and the U.S. in regards to what responsibility intermediaries should have for content on their platforms. Internet intermediaries typically frame their opposition to legislation as protecting freedom of expression, but no right of speech is absolute. This debate is a battle over the control over information: What data should be collected and sold, what content should be permitted online, and who should decide? Last week the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee grilled senior legal counsel for Facebook, Google and Twitter about their roles in Russian efforts to influence the U.S. election. In a startling development, after months of denying and downplaying their responsibility, executives from each of the three companies grudgingly admitted that they had not yet determined the full extent of Russian activities on their platforms. The executives’ testimony starkly reveals that the companies have few controls on the advertisements and so-called “fake news” that they accept on their platforms. These candid admissions from the social media giants focus much-needed attention on the serious problems inherent in big intermediaries’ data-intensive business models. Few safeguards, financial interest in status quo As the U.S. election scandal shows, big social media platforms not only have few safeguards to prevent the deliberate manipulation of information, but they also have financial interests in maintaining the status quo. Unfettered flows of information and unconstrained advertising revenue are key to their business models. And this model is tremendously profitable. Facebook’s third-quarter profit was an astounding US$4.7 billion, the vast majority coming from advertisements relating to its 1.3 billion average daily users. Viral stories, whether factual or false, attract clicks and advertising revenue. Given the seemingly intractable challenges of regulating social media platforms, what can be done? In the United States, three members of Congress have proposed a bipartisan response, the Honest Ads Act, that would require platforms to publish information about their advertisers and maintain a public archive of political advertisements. This is a step in the right direction, and the Canadian government should consider similar measures in advance of the 2019 federal election. Facebook has already announced a program, the Canadian Election Integrity Initiative, to counter the spread of misinformation that focuses on media literacy and training. Deliberate misinformation While these projects appear useful, they likely will do little to address the underlying problem: The bad-faith spread of online misinformation. That’s because the fundamental problem lies with Facebook’s business model. Efforts to constrain the flow of information, especially information that generates advertising revenue, are contrary to their business model. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who initially dismissed claims of Russian interference as “crazy” just after the 2016 U.S. election, said on Nov. 1 that Facebook’s new security features to counter so-called fake news will have a “significant impact our profitability.” While the big platforms can afford to take a financial hit to restore their reputations and work to get rid of the worst offenders, they can’t fully solve the problem without fundamentally changing how — and with whom — they do business. Facebook ads linked to a Russian effort to stir tensions on divisive social issues during the U.S. election campaign. (AP) × In response to what has become a fundamental challenge to the survival of liberal democracy, Facebook, Twitter and Google have all committed to voluntarily implementing measures to address the spread of misinformation and targeting accounts that troll other users with often bigoted, racist content. Google, for example, is creating a public database of election advertising content that appears on its services. These companies prefer self-regulation to legislation and they’ve lobbied the U.S Federal Election Commission in the past to have online political advertising exempt from disclosure. It’s only the political pressure from the Senate inquiry that is forcing these platforms into action. Internet companies, algorithms are black boxes While these developments may seem like attempts by these major companies to be responsible, they amount to Google et al saying: “Trust us to fix the problem we created.” However, while Google, Facebook and Twitter are all creating algorithms to, in the words of Zuckerberg, “detect bad content and bad actors,” these algorithms operate as so-called “black boxes.” This means that the criteria the algorithms use to make decisions are off-limits to public scrutiny. Is “trust us” a good enough response, given the problem? With so much at stake, it may be time for a fundamental rethink of how these indispensable 21st-century companies are regulated and what they’re allowed to do. At the very minimum, governments and citizens should reconsider whether the lack of oversight into how these companies shape our speech rights is really in the public interest. Social media platforms “are an enabler of democracy,” says Margrethe Vestager, the European Union’s Commissioner for Competition, but we’re seeing that “they can also be used against our very basic beliefs in democracy.” It’s time to start taking that threat to democracy seriously. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Why social media needs to be regulated urgently

Google is not buying Apple.&nbsp;

That was a false alarm or, as it is called nowadays, &quot;fake news&quot;.&nbsp;

The news though -- that Google was buying Apple for $9 billion -- was put out by the very well-respected Dow Jones newswire.&nbsp;

The Dow Jones newswire services the world of financial journalism and business.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The Dow Jones story read: &quot;In a surprise move to everyone who is alive, Google said it&#39;s going to buy Apple for $9 billion.&quot;&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%24GOOG&amp;src=ctag&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">$GOOG</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%24AAPL&amp;src=ctag&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">$AAPL</a> by Dow Jones... I guess you guys have some explaining to do <a href="https://t.co/402KaCcQJz">pic.twitter.com/402KaCcQJz</a>
&mdash; Trader 53 (@trader_53) <a href="https://twitter.com/trader_53/status/917746699149471744?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 10, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The story added that Google chief executive Larry Page met &quot;in secret&quot;&nbsp;with the &quot;now-deceased Steve Jobs 2010 to firm up the deal&quot;.&nbsp;And that &quot;the deal was announced when Jobs&#39; will was read&quot;.&nbsp;

The story also reported, news reports said, that Google employees would take over Apple headquarters the following day, when the deal was set to close, and that they would receive 9 Apple shares for every Google share owned.&nbsp;

Dow Jones issued a statement later saying: &quot;Please disregard the headlines that ran on Dow Jones Newswires between 9:34 a.m. ET and 9:36 a.m. ET. Due to a technical error, the headlines were published. All of those headlines are being removed from the wires. We apologize for the error.&quot;

But the &quot;fake news&quot; had already had a bit of an effect.

Apple shares had by that time risen slightly.&nbsp;

The story was accidentally put out by the very well-respected Dow Jones newswire

Google is not buying Apple. That was a false alarm or, as it is called nowadays, "fake news". The news though -- that Google was buying Apple for $9 billion -- was put out by the very well-respected Dow Jones newswire. The Dow Jones newswire services the world of financial journalism and business. The Dow Jones story read: "In a surprise move to everyone who is alive, Google said it's going to buy Apple for $9 billion." $GOOG $AAPL by Dow Jones... I guess you guys have some explaining to do pic.twitter.com/402KaCcQJz — Trader 53 (@trader_53) October 10, 2017 × The story added that Google chief executive Larry Page met "in secret" with the "now-deceased Steve Jobs 2010 to firm up the deal". And that "the deal was announced when Jobs' will was read". The story also reported, news reports said, that Google employees would take over Apple headquarters the following day, when the deal was set to close, and that they would receive 9 Apple shares for every Google share owned. Dow Jones issued a statement later saying: "Please disregard the headlines that ran on Dow Jones Newswires between 9:34 a.m. ET and 9:36 a.m. ET. Due to a technical error, the headlines were published. All of those headlines are being removed from the wires. We apologize for the error." But the "fake news" had already had a bit of an effect. Apple shares had by that time risen slightly.

No, Google is not buying Apple. That was a false alarm

The pope has said he will fight fake news.&nbsp;

&quot;I have chose this theme for World Communications Day 2018: &#39;The truth will set you free&#39;. Fake news and journalism for peace,&quot; Francis tweeted on Friday.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I have chosen this theme for World Communications Day 2018: &ldquo;The truth will set you free&rdquo; (Jn 8:32). Fake news and journalism for peace.
&mdash; Pope Francis (@Pontifex) <a href="https://twitter.com/Pontifex/status/913712457868181505?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 29, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

AFP reported that Francis has often reminded journalists of their responsibility in a world dominated by social media.&nbsp;

Last year, AFP reported, Francis compared scandal-obsessed media outlets who smear politicians and spread gossip to people sexually excited by excrement.

He also described the readers of the media outlets as faeces eaters.

AFP reported the Vatican as saying on Friday that the Argentine pontiff wanted to tackle &quot;an often misleading distortion of facts&quot; and the spread of &quot;baseless information that contributes to generating and nurturing a strong polarisation of opinions&quot;.

The pope himself has been the victim of fake news.&nbsp;

In February this year, a fake front page of the Vatican&#39;s official newspaper with a fake interview of the pope on it was sent to numerous cardinals and bishops.

It is thought that was done to try and undermine Francis.&nbsp;

Francis has often reminded journalists of their responsibility in a world dominated by social media

The pope has said he will fight fake news. "I have chose this theme for World Communications Day 2018: 'The truth will set you free'. Fake news and journalism for peace," Francis tweeted on Friday. I have chosen this theme for World Communications Day 2018: “The truth will set you free” (Jn 8:32). Fake news and journalism for peace. — Pope Francis (@Pontifex) September 29, 2017 × AFP reported that Francis has often reminded journalists of their responsibility in a world dominated by social media. Last year, AFP reported, Francis compared scandal-obsessed media outlets who smear politicians and spread gossip to people sexually excited by excrement. He also described the readers of the media outlets as faeces eaters. AFP reported the Vatican as saying on Friday that the Argentine pontiff wanted to tackle "an often misleading distortion of facts" and the spread of "baseless information that contributes to generating and nurturing a strong polarisation of opinions". The pope himself has been the victim of fake news. In February this year, a fake front page of the Vatican's official newspaper with a fake interview of the pope on it was sent to numerous cardinals and bishops. It is thought that was done to try and undermine Francis.

Pope says he will fight 'fake news'

As Facebook faces intense fake news scrutiny after disclosing the details about the presence of Russian political ads worth $100,000 on its platform during the 2016 US presidential election, it was none other than former President Barack Obama who had warned CEO Mark Zuckerberg about fake news on Facebook. 
 
According to a report in The Washington Post late on Sunday, in November last year, Obama made a personal appeal to Zuckerberg to take the threat of fake news and political disinformation seriously.&nbsp; 
 
&quot;Unless Facebook and the government did more to address the threat, Obama warned, it would only get worse in the next presidential race,&quot; the report added.&nbsp; 
 
However, Zuckerberg acknowledged the problem posed by fake news but &quot;told Obama that those messages weren`t widespread on Facebook and that there was no easy remedy&quot;. 
 
Now, after an extensive legal and policy review, the social media giant has announced it would now share those 3,000 Russian ads with Congressional investigators. 
 
Facebook announced it had found more than 3,000 ads addressing social and political issues that ran in the US between 2015 and 2017 and that appear to have come from accounts associated with a Russian entity known as the Internet Research Agency. 
 
Facebook earlier handed over the details to American Special Counsel Robert Mueller that included copies of the ads and details about the accounts that bought them and the targeting criteria they used.

Zuckerberg, who returned after taking parental leave after his second daughter was born, said in a post last week that he deeply cares about the democratic process and protecting its integrity.&nbsp; 
 
Zuckerberg said &quot;We will continue our investigation into what happened on Facebook in this election. We may find more, and if we do, we will continue to work with the government&quot;. 
 
The Facebook CEO noted that the social media company has already provided information regarding this issue with the special counsel and have also briefed Congress about it. 
 
He stressed the company would now make political advertising more transparent. When someone buys political ads on TV or other media, they are required by law to disclose who paid for them.&nbsp; 
 
The company would strengthen the ad review process for political ads. Facebook would now increase investment in security and specifically election integrity.&nbsp; 
 
&quot;In the next year, we will more than double the team working on election integrity. In total, we`ll add more than 250 people across all our teams focused on security and safety for our community,&quot; Zuckerberg said.

According to a report in The Washington Post late on Sunday, in November last year, Obama made a personal appeal to Zuckerberg to take the threat of fake news and political disinformation seriously.?

As Facebook faces intense fake news scrutiny after disclosing the details about the presence of Russian political ads worth $100,000 on its platform during the 2016 US presidential election, it was none other than former President Barack Obama who had warned CEO Mark Zuckerberg about fake news on Facebook. According to a report in The Washington Post late on Sunday, in November last year, Obama made a personal appeal to Zuckerberg to take the threat of fake news and political disinformation seriously. "Unless Facebook and the government did more to address the threat, Obama warned, it would only get worse in the next presidential race," the report added. However, Zuckerberg acknowledged the problem posed by fake news but "told Obama that those messages weren`t widespread on Facebook and that there was no easy remedy". Now, after an extensive legal and policy review, the social media giant has announced it would now share those 3,000 Russian ads with Congressional investigators. Facebook announced it had found more than 3,000 ads addressing social and political issues that ran in the US between 2015 and 2017 and that appear to have come from accounts associated with a Russian entity known as the Internet Research Agency. Facebook earlier handed over the details to American Special Counsel Robert Mueller that included copies of the ads and details about the accounts that bought them and the targeting criteria they used. Zuckerberg, who returned after taking parental leave after his second daughter was born, said in a post last week that he deeply cares about the democratic process and protecting its integrity. Zuckerberg said "We will continue our investigation into what happened on Facebook in this election. We may find more, and if we do, we will continue to work with the government". The Facebook CEO noted that the social media company has already provided information regarding this issue with the special counsel and have also briefed Congress about it. He stressed the company would now make political advertising more transparent. When someone buys political ads on TV or other media, they are required by law to disclose who paid for them. The company would strengthen the ad review process for political ads. Facebook would now increase investment in security and specifically election integrity. "In the next year, we will more than double the team working on election integrity. In total, we`ll add more than 250 people across all our teams focused on security and safety for our community," Zuckerberg said.

Obama personally warned Zuckerberg over fake news

A story claiming that six Arab nations had written to FIFA demanding that Qatar be stripped of the World Cup in 2022 was published on what appeared to be a fake version of a Swiss news website, the site&#39;s co-founder said on Sunday.

The report, carried on a website resembling The Local, included quotes purporting to be from FIFA President Gianni Infantino. Reuters published stories based on the report, which were subsequently withdrawn.

The fake story on The Local&nbsp;said that the six countries, which last month cut ties with Qatar, had collectively written to world soccer&#39;s governing body asking it to remove Qatar as hosts under Article 85 of the FIFA Code, which allows for such action in the case of emergency.

<h3><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/uae-arranged-for-hacking-of-qatar-govt-sites-causing-diplomatic-row-washington-post-17984" target="_blank">Related Read:&nbsp;UAE arranged for hacking of Qatar gov&#39;t sites, causing diplomatic row: Washington Post</a></h3>

&nbsp;

&quot;The Local&#39;s staff neither wrote, published nor removed the article in question and The Local can therefore not vouch for any of the claims made,&quot; co-founder James Savage said in a statement on Sunday.

&quot;Our investigation so far indicates the article appeared on a fake site designed to look like The Local, and never appeared on The Local&#39;s own site.&quot;

The Local publishes in English and operates nine news sites across Europe.

Reuters published stories based on the report, which were subsequently withdrawn

A story claiming that six Arab nations had written to FIFA demanding that Qatar be stripped of the World Cup in 2022 was published on what appeared to be a fake version of a Swiss news website, the site's co-founder said on Sunday. The report, carried on a website resembling The Local, included quotes purporting to be from FIFA President Gianni Infantino. Reuters published stories based on the report, which were subsequently withdrawn. The fake story on The Local said that the six countries, which last month cut ties with Qatar, had collectively written to world soccer's governing body asking it to remove Qatar as hosts under Article 85 of the FIFA Code, which allows for such action in the case of emergency. Related Read: UAE arranged for hacking of Qatar gov't sites, causing diplomatic row: Washington Post "The Local's staff neither wrote, published nor removed the article in question and The Local can therefore not vouch for any of the claims made," co-founder James Savage said in a statement on Sunday. "Our investigation so far indicates the article appeared on a fake site designed to look like The Local, and never appeared on The Local's own site." The Local publishes in English and operates nine news sites across Europe.

Website says report of plot to strip Qatar of World Cup was 'fake'

French voters are being deluged with false stories on social media ahead of the country&#39;s presidential election, though the onslaught of &quot;junk news&quot; is not as severe as that during last year&#39;s US&nbsp;presidential campaign, according to a study by Oxford University researchers.

The study to be published Friday and another published on Wednesday add evidence to complaints by officials in France, Germany and the United States that Russia is trying to replicate its cyber-powered election meddling in American politics.

Just days before France votes in the first round of a presidential election, the study said misinformation at times has accounted for one-quarter of the political links shared on Twitter in France. It defined &quot;junk news&quot; as deliberately false stories and those expressing &quot;ideologically extreme, hyper-partisan or conspiratorial&quot; views with logical flaws and opinions passed along as facts.

&quot;French voters are sharing better quality information than what many US&nbsp;voters shared and almost as much quality news and information as German users share,&quot; according to the study by the Oxford Internet Institute, which will be published on Friday but was made available on Thursday to Reuters.

The French study uses data from a recent week on Twitter but a greater role is being played by Facebook, said Kevin Limonier of the University of Paris VIII, who is studying social media manipulation in the election with a grant from the French government.

Facebook recently suspended 30,000 suspected automated accounts in France. Although it characterised the cleanup as an objective move against spamming, many of the profiles were distributing politically driven misinformation and propaganda.

On Twitter, where automated accounts are allowed, many of the same accounts that promoted Republican Donald Trump in the US&nbsp;campaign last year have turned their attention to pushing conspiracy theories and far-right viewpoints, according to Limonier and Clinton Watts, a former FBI agent and now a senior fellow at the George Washington University Center for Cyber and Homeland Security.

&nbsp;

RUSSIA SHIFTS FOCUS TO GERMANY

&quot;A contingent of the Trump campaign supporters we believe to be &#39;bots&#39; and accounts from Russia have shifted to Germany,&rdquo; Watts said. &quot;If I had to estimate, about one-third of previous Trump supporter accounts are now trying to influence the German election.&quot;

Another study published this week from the private research group Bakamo showed a similar percentage of fake news versus real news on social media in France as that found by the Oxford researchers. Much of the fake news came from sources that were &quot;exposed to Russian influence,&quot; the Bakamo study said.

The Oxford researchers say their study of social media traffic in the days before the US&nbsp;presidential election last November showed that Michigan voters shared an equal amount of genuine and fake news with each other.

By contrast, in the days leading up to the less divisive German presidential election in February, the Oxford study &quot;found Germans sharing four professionally produced news stories for every one piece of junk.&quot;

&quot;All in all, US&nbsp;voters were sharing very poor quality news and information about major public policy debates at a critical time before a national election,&quot; Philip Howard, director of the Oxford Institute said. &quot;Both German and French voters are sharing much smaller amounts of junk news.&quot;

Before he left office in January, President Barack Obama said sharp political divisions made the United States particularly vulnerable to foreign influence and information warfare. US&nbsp;intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russian government interfered in the election to help Trump win.

The Oxford Institute said that while the biggest proportion of postings in France concerned moderate candidate Emmanuel Macron, who has done well in polls, &quot;highly automated accounts&quot; have &quot;occasionally generated large amounts of traffic about&quot; conservative Francois Fillon.

(Reuters)

The study to be published Friday adds evidence that Russia is trying to replicate its cyber-powered election meddling in American politics

French voters are being deluged with false stories on social media ahead of the country's presidential election, though the onslaught of "junk news" is not as severe as that during last year's US presidential campaign, according to a study by Oxford University researchers. The study to be published Friday and another published on Wednesday add evidence to complaints by officials in France, Germany and the United States that Russia is trying to replicate its cyber-powered election meddling in American politics. Just days before France votes in the first round of a presidential election, the study said misinformation at times has accounted for one-quarter of the political links shared on Twitter in France. It defined "junk news" as deliberately false stories and those expressing "ideologically extreme, hyper-partisan or conspiratorial" views with logical flaws and opinions passed along as facts. "French voters are sharing better quality information than what many US voters shared and almost as much quality news and information as German users share," according to the study by the Oxford Internet Institute, which will be published on Friday but was made available on Thursday to Reuters. The French study uses data from a recent week on Twitter but a greater role is being played by Facebook, said Kevin Limonier of the University of Paris VIII, who is studying social media manipulation in the election with a grant from the French government. Facebook recently suspended 30,000 suspected automated accounts in France. Although it characterised the cleanup as an objective move against spamming, many of the profiles were distributing politically driven misinformation and propaganda. On Twitter, where automated accounts are allowed, many of the same accounts that promoted Republican Donald Trump in the US campaign last year have turned their attention to pushing conspiracy theories and far-right viewpoints, according to Limonier and Clinton Watts, a former FBI agent and now a senior fellow at the George Washington University Center for Cyber and Homeland Security. RUSSIA SHIFTS FOCUS TO GERMANY "A contingent of the Trump campaign supporters we believe to be 'bots' and accounts from Russia have shifted to Germany,” Watts said. "If I had to estimate, about one-third of previous Trump supporter accounts are now trying to influence the German election." Another study published this week from the private research group Bakamo showed a similar percentage of fake news versus real news on social media in France as that found by the Oxford researchers. Much of the fake news came from sources that were "exposed to Russian influence," the Bakamo study said. The Oxford researchers say their study of social media traffic in the days before the US presidential election last November showed that Michigan voters shared an equal amount of genuine and fake news with each other. By contrast, in the days leading up to the less divisive German presidential election in February, the Oxford study "found Germans sharing four professionally produced news stories for every one piece of junk." "All in all, US voters were sharing very poor quality news and information about major public policy debates at a critical time before a national election," Philip Howard, director of the Oxford Institute said. "Both German and French voters are sharing much smaller amounts of junk news." Before he left office in January, President Barack Obama said sharp political divisions made the United States particularly vulnerable to foreign influence and information warfare. US intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russian government interfered in the election to help Trump win. The Oxford Institute said that while the biggest proportion of postings in France concerned moderate candidate Emmanuel Macron, who has done well in polls, "highly automated accounts" have "occasionally generated large amounts of traffic about" conservative Francois Fillon. (Reuters)

Automated accounts sharing fake news ahead of French election, experts say

Facebook said it has started weeding out bogus accounts by watching for suspicious behaviour such as repetitive posts or torrents of messages.

The security improvement was described as being part of a broader effort to rid the leading social network of hoaxes, misinformation, and fake news by making sure people are who they claim to be.

&quot;We&#39;ve found that when people represent themselves on Facebook the same way they do in real life, they act responsibly,&quot; Shabnam Shaik of the Facebook protect and care team said in a blog post.

&quot;Fake accounts don&#39;t follow this pattern, and are closely related to the creation and spread of spam.&quot;

Accounts suspected of being bogus are suspended and holders asked to verify identifies, which scammers typically don&#39;t do, according to the California-based social network.

In France, the new tactic has already resulted in Facebook taking action against 30,000 accounts believed to be fakes, Shaik said.

&quot;We&#39;ve made improvements to recognise these inauthentic accounts more easily by identifying patterns of activity - without assessing the content itself,&quot; Shaik said.

&quot;With these changes, we expect we will also reduce the spread of material generated through inauthentic activity, including spam, misinformation, or other deceptive content that is often shared by creators of fake accounts.&quot;

Under pressure to stymie the spread of fake news, Facebook has taken a series of steps including making it easier to report such posts and harder to make money from them.

Facebook also modified its displays of trending topics to find stories faster, capture a broader range of news, and help ensure that trends reflect real world events being covered by multiple news outlets.

Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg has sought to deflect criticism that the huge social network may have been used to fuel the spread of misinformation that affected the 2016 US presidential race.

Facebook last week unleashed a new weapon in the war against &quot;revenge porn&quot; at the social network as well as the messaging services Messenger and Instagram.

When intimate images shared on Facebook without permission are reported, confirmed and removed, the company will use photo-matching technology to prevent copies from being shared again on its platform.

(AFP)

&nbsp;

The move is described as part of a broader effort to rid the leading social network of hoaxes, misinformation, and fake news

Facebook said it has started weeding out bogus accounts by watching for suspicious behaviour such as repetitive posts or torrents of messages. The security improvement was described as being part of a broader effort to rid the leading social network of hoaxes, misinformation, and fake news by making sure people are who they claim to be. "We've found that when people represent themselves on Facebook the same way they do in real life, they act responsibly," Shabnam Shaik of the Facebook protect and care team said in a blog post. "Fake accounts don't follow this pattern, and are closely related to the creation and spread of spam." Accounts suspected of being bogus are suspended and holders asked to verify identifies, which scammers typically don't do, according to the California-based social network. In France, the new tactic has already resulted in Facebook taking action against 30,000 accounts believed to be fakes, Shaik said. "We've made improvements to recognise these inauthentic accounts more easily by identifying patterns of activity - without assessing the content itself," Shaik said. "With these changes, we expect we will also reduce the spread of material generated through inauthentic activity, including spam, misinformation, or other deceptive content that is often shared by creators of fake accounts." Under pressure to stymie the spread of fake news, Facebook has taken a series of steps including making it easier to report such posts and harder to make money from them. Facebook also modified its displays of trending topics to find stories faster, capture a broader range of news, and help ensure that trends reflect real world events being covered by multiple news outlets. Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg has sought to deflect criticism that the huge social network may have been used to fuel the spread of misinformation that affected the 2016 US presidential race. Facebook last week unleashed a new weapon in the war against "revenge porn" at the social network as well as the messaging services Messenger and Instagram. When intimate images shared on Facebook without permission are reported, confirmed and removed, the company will use photo-matching technology to prevent copies from being shared again on its platform. (AFP)

Facebook looking at behaviour to weed out fake accounts

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

*****WORK IN PROGRESS, for the love of god do not publish yet***********************

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

There is much&nbsp;confusion, even in newsrooms, about just what constitutes Fake News. WION is not the&nbsp;first outlet to write about it, but I experienced the phenomenon first-hand.&nbsp;My story is illustrative of the&nbsp;real&nbsp;fake news.

Unsurprisingly,&nbsp;Twitter was unusually electric in the days leading up to the November 8, 2016 US election. That&#39;s to be expected. But with hindsight we know something was indeed very very wrong.

I had a small taste of what&nbsp;US intelligence agencies say was Russia advancing&nbsp;Trump&#39;s&nbsp;election campaign&nbsp;by&nbsp;putting&nbsp;forth a &quot;co-ordinated multifaceted cyber campaign&quot;.

An anonymous account supporting--the avatar wore a MAGA (Make America Great Again) hate, atop a Pepe frog--began harassing me, making Nazi jokes and asking &quot;triggered, liberal?&quot;&nbsp;

To this question I said, &quot;No not really&quot;, or something to that effect.

While I myself wasn&#39;t profoundly bothered by this stuff, I sent a complaint to Twitter, thinking comments about gas chamber jokes had no place on Twitter.

Twitter did nothing. But that isn&#39;t even what&#39;s noteworthy. After the election, the account disappeared!

I wouldn&#39;t have thought too much of it: It was only one account, perhaps the account had just been deleted

Only when a fellow journalist described blocking hundreds, if not thousands of such accounts, and having them all disappear immediately after the election did it occur to me that this is what happened to me.

It wasn&#39;t unreasonable to assume that Trump, who did indeed win millions of votes, had a lage presence on social media. Believing Trump supporters would make Nazi jokes was also, let&#39;s say, not difficult to believe.&nbsp;This was the point.

Countless fake accounts were designed to appear like&nbsp;real people. These accounts&nbsp;intimidated journalists and shared news stories favourable to Donald Trump. They had names like &quot;Moms for Trump&quot;, &quot;Vets for Trump&quot;, &quot;Deplorable for...&quot; and the like.

This is being investigated right now by the FBI in the investigation of President Trump himself. What effect this had on the US election this had is hard to say, but there were six Trump bots for every Clinton one (and none of Clintons had geolocations from Russia or any other hostile country).

&nbsp;

Breitbart, Infowars

Some of the stories these bots linked to were preposterous&nbsp;lies, like the Democrats rape and kill children in the basement of a Washington pizza parlour. This is the most flagrant kind of Fake News--a fake person spreading outrageous lies.&nbsp;

Stories from Breitbart and Infowars, while false, do not meet this criteria of Fake News. They twisted facts to reach a distorted narrative. But it must be said, these bots spread many stories from these sites, and the FBI is investigating both sites for their involvement&nbsp;

It may very well be that these sites produce stories that are simply untrue, or grossly so. It&#39;s possible that&nbsp;they were connected to the Trump-Russia world of Fake News, but that remains to be seen.

But it&#39;s important that Fake News as a concept does not conflated with other forms of dishonest journalism.

&nbsp;

Disingenuous news, while fake, is not the same as Fake News

If a reporter makes up a quote, or even a story, that is fraud, but there is an important distinction between this and the wider phenomeonon of Fake News.&nbsp;

One disingenous reporter making up stories&nbsp;inside an otherwise real news outlet is pernicious, but poses a different&nbsp;threat. In some ways the threat is greater and smaller. On the one hand, they benefit from operating within a respectable establishment, and for being taken more seriously for it. Once they are exposed, the normal newsroom will fire them immediately. The fraud is a&nbsp;threat&nbsp;to the real newsroom.

In the case of Fake News, the newsroom&nbsp;is&nbsp;the fraud. Remember, it&#39;s a metaphorical newsroom. The stories about Clinton and Podesta being killers and rapists were pumped out from Macedonia by frauds who deliberatey pumped out false stories to discredit people for money.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

because they are operating within a system that does have real fact-checking, that will&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Breitbart and Infowars under investigation for ties to Russia: report <a href="https://t.co/EVokfwL7RE">https://t.co/EVokfwL7RE</a> <a href="https://t.co/lmBBUBr6vl">pic.twitter.com/lmBBUBr6vl</a>
&mdash; Raw Story (@RawStory) <a href="https://twitter.com/RawStory/status/844013056837541888">March 21, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Bad journalism should not be conflated with Fake News, and the people confusing the issue are usually the source of the Fake News itself

*****WORK IN PROGRESS, for the love of god do not publish yet*********************** There is much confusion, even in newsrooms, about just what constitutes Fake News. WION is not the first outlet to write about it, but I experienced the phenomenon first-hand. My story is illustrative of the real fake news. Unsurprisingly, Twitter was unusually electric in the days leading up to the November 8, 2016 US election. That's to be expected. But with hindsight we know something was indeed very very wrong. I had a small taste of what US intelligence agencies say was Russia advancing Trump's election campaign by putting forth a "co-ordinated multifaceted cyber campaign". An anonymous account supporting--the avatar wore a MAGA (Make America Great Again) hate, atop a Pepe frog--began harassing me, making Nazi jokes and asking "triggered, liberal?" To this question I said, "No not really", or something to that effect. While I myself wasn't profoundly bothered by this stuff, I sent a complaint to Twitter, thinking comments about gas chamber jokes had no place on Twitter. Twitter did nothing. But that isn't even what's noteworthy. After the election, the account disappeared! I wouldn't have thought too much of it: It was only one account, perhaps the account had just been deleted Only when a fellow journalist described blocking hundreds, if not thousands of such accounts, and having them all disappear immediately after the election did it occur to me that this is what happened to me. It wasn't unreasonable to assume that Trump, who did indeed win millions of votes, had a lage presence on social media. Believing Trump supporters would make Nazi jokes was also, let's say, not difficult to believe. This was the point. Countless fake accounts were designed to appear like real people. These accounts intimidated journalists and shared news stories favourable to Donald Trump. They had names like "Moms for Trump", "Vets for Trump", "Deplorable for..." and the like. This is being investigated right now by the FBI in the investigation of President Trump himself. What effect this had on the US election this had is hard to say, but there were six Trump bots for every Clinton one (and none of Clintons had geolocations from Russia or any other hostile country). Breitbart, Infowars Some of the stories these bots linked to were preposterous lies, like the Democrats rape and kill children in the basement of a Washington pizza parlour. This is the most flagrant kind of Fake News--a fake person spreading outrageous lies. Stories from Breitbart and Infowars, while false, do not meet this criteria of Fake News. They twisted facts to reach a distorted narrative. But it must be said, these bots spread many stories from these sites, and the FBI is investigating both sites for their involvement It may very well be that these sites produce stories that are simply untrue, or grossly so. It's possible that they were connected to the Trump-Russia world of Fake News, but that remains to be seen. But it's important that Fake News as a concept does not conflated with other forms of dishonest journalism. Disingenuous news, while fake, is not the same as Fake News If a reporter makes up a quote, or even a story, that is fraud, but there is an important distinction between this and the wider phenomeonon of Fake News. One disingenous reporter making up stories inside an otherwise real news outlet is pernicious, but poses a different threat. In some ways the threat is greater and smaller. On the one hand, they benefit from operating within a respectable establishment, and for being taken more seriously for it. Once they are exposed, the normal newsroom will fire them immediately. The fraud is a threat to the real newsroom. In the case of Fake News, the newsroom is the fraud. Remember, it's a metaphorical newsroom. The stories about Clinton and Podesta being killers and rapists were pumped out from Macedonia by frauds who deliberatey pumped out false stories to discredit people for money. because they are operating within a system that does have real fact-checking, that will Breitbart and Infowars under investigation for ties to Russia: report https://t.co/EVokfwL7RE pic.twitter.com/lmBBUBr6vl — Raw Story (@RawStory) March 21, 2017 ×

Fake News: What it's really about---work in progess, don't publish yet!!

My journey in the newsroom started in the &lsquo;90s when I started working for a television news channel. At that time, news channels were heavy on people and the technology was cumbersome. I remember that when I was deployed to the front lines of Afghanistan in 2001, I had to carry equipment weighing almost 600 kilos. The technology supporting the channel often broke down and one had to factor this during broadcasting.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Evolution of news media&nbsp;

Since the human race has come into existence, it has been disseminating information/news in one form or the other. Beginning with birds carrying scrolls from one corner of the world to another, to representatives of thrones relaying important information to subjects through loudspeakers, to the evolution of newspapers, radio, television, and now digital platforms, news dissemination has come a long way.&nbsp;

However, one of the most interesting aspects of this evolution is that each medium has survived in one form or the other while catering to different audiences. In many Indian villages, important announcements like the screening of a movie, rituals in a temple, or decisions taken by the panchayat are still &lsquo;broadcast&rsquo; through loudspeakers. Each medium has survived and has now become an independent entity.&nbsp;

In a conventional newsroom, the core medium was traditionally print or television, with all other mediums playing ad-hoc roles. News bulletins of the television channel were uploaded on to the website of the channel, diminishing the role of the digital support to just marketing.&nbsp;

Similarly, articles published in a newspaper were also published on the digital platform with the objective of reaching a wider audience. The variation in roles have not traditionally been harnessed to the best of their potential so far.&nbsp;

Need for integrated newsrooms&nbsp;

In the past decade, the digital newsroom has been one of the largest disruptions of both the news space and the Internet. People now have access to terabytes of information at just one click. Digital no longer merely supports earlier forms of news media, but is an independent source of information.&nbsp;

Innovations such as 360 videos have entirely transformed the way in which an audience can interact with content. People who want their daily news feed &lsquo;on the go&rsquo; have news applications downloaded on their phone.&nbsp;

Some don&rsquo;t have the patience to read long articles and thus 140 Twitter characters are their daily news updates. Others prefer a visual depiction of what is happening around them, and television or digital plays on graphics serve that need.&nbsp;

In the morning, while on the long commute to work or if heading into a remote area, radio takes over prime position. Print caters to an audience that prefers detailed analyses. On the one hand, the range of platforms enable a news organisation to disseminate news widely, and on the other, source news as well. For example, during the attack on Brussel&rsquo;s airport, live tweets and videos by passengers and victims at the airport helped news organisations around the world to understand what the ground reality was as it unfolded. In certain cases, it even connected family members in real time.&nbsp;

Today, the consumption of news happens simultaneously, but it is important for the audience to see the underlying thread across all the platforms.&nbsp;

Fake news can be weeded out&nbsp;

At present, news aggregation websites have started scraping news together from other news hosting websites and claiming to be journalistic sites. It is just plagiarism, with no added value to readers.&nbsp;

Today, we are faced with the global rise of fake news that has the capacity to influence public opinion and, in turn, influence important world events. One of the reasons for this is that when news depends merely on reach, without the journalistic rigour, it is left devoid of its ethical basis. It is therefore up to journalists to utilise the many mediums at our disposal to not only reach many, but to reach many ethically.&nbsp;

An integrated newsroom has the best capability to weed out fake news. Journalists are able to use this integration to deliver their content via a central technology platform. It is then widely disseminated on different media going through multiple checks by people manning each medium in various layers. This makes the stories that are told that much stronger.&nbsp;

From storytelling, to optimising resources, to reaching a wider audience, to increasing the capacity, to verifying the authenticity of every piece of content, an integrated newsroom provides endless opportunities. That is what DNA and WION stand for. We look forward to your engagement with us as we continue to launch our new platforms.

In an era of fake news and aggregator services, streamlining will help us put out one clear, ethical voice

My journey in the newsroom started in the ‘90s when I started working for a television news channel. At that time, news channels were heavy on people and the technology was cumbersome. I remember that when I was deployed to the front lines of Afghanistan in 2001, I had to carry equipment weighing almost 600 kilos. The technology supporting the channel often broke down and one had to factor this during broadcasting. Evolution of news media Since the human race has come into existence, it has been disseminating information/news in one form or the other. Beginning with birds carrying scrolls from one corner of the world to another, to representatives of thrones relaying important information to subjects through loudspeakers, to the evolution of newspapers, radio, television, and now digital platforms, news dissemination has come a long way. However, one of the most interesting aspects of this evolution is that each medium has survived in one form or the other while catering to different audiences. In many Indian villages, important announcements like the screening of a movie, rituals in a temple, or decisions taken by the panchayat are still ‘broadcast’ through loudspeakers. Each medium has survived and has now become an independent entity. In a conventional newsroom, the core medium was traditionally print or television, with all other mediums playing ad-hoc roles. News bulletins of the television channel were uploaded on to the website of the channel, diminishing the role of the digital support to just marketing. Similarly, articles published in a newspaper were also published on the digital platform with the objective of reaching a wider audience. The variation in roles have not traditionally been harnessed to the best of their potential so far. Need for integrated newsrooms In the past decade, the digital newsroom has been one of the largest disruptions of both the news space and the Internet. People now have access to terabytes of information at just one click. Digital no longer merely supports earlier forms of news media, but is an independent source of information. Innovations such as 360 videos have entirely transformed the way in which an audience can interact with content. People who want their daily news feed ‘on the go’ have news applications downloaded on their phone. Some don’t have the patience to read long articles and thus 140 Twitter characters are their daily news updates. Others prefer a visual depiction of what is happening around them, and television or digital plays on graphics serve that need. In the morning, while on the long commute to work or if heading into a remote area, radio takes over prime position. Print caters to an audience that prefers detailed analyses. On the one hand, the range of platforms enable a news organisation to disseminate news widely, and on the other, source news as well. For example, during the attack on Brussel’s airport, live tweets and videos by passengers and victims at the airport helped news organisations around the world to understand what the ground reality was as it unfolded. In certain cases, it even connected family members in real time. Today, the consumption of news happens simultaneously, but it is important for the audience to see the underlying thread across all the platforms. Fake news can be weeded out At present, news aggregation websites have started scraping news together from other news hosting websites and claiming to be journalistic sites. It is just plagiarism, with no added value to readers. Today, we are faced with the global rise of fake news that has the capacity to influence public opinion and, in turn, influence important world events. One of the reasons for this is that when news depends merely on reach, without the journalistic rigour, it is left devoid of its ethical basis. It is therefore up to journalists to utilise the many mediums at our disposal to not only reach many, but to reach many ethically. An integrated newsroom has the best capability to weed out fake news. Journalists are able to use this integration to deliver their content via a central technology platform. It is then widely disseminated on different media going through multiple checks by people manning each medium in various layers. This makes the stories that are told that much stronger. From storytelling, to optimising resources, to reaching a wider audience, to increasing the capacity, to verifying the authenticity of every piece of content, an integrated newsroom provides endless opportunities. That is what DNA and WION stand for. We look forward to your engagement with us as we continue to launch our new platforms.

Integrated news the new normal

Facebook and Twitter have signed up to a coalition of news and technology companies to tackle fake news and improve the quality of information on social media. 
 
First Draft Coalition was formed in June 2015 and its members include the New York Times, BuzzFeed News, CNN, Washington Post and AFP. 
 
The coalition was formed with the backing of Alphabet Inc&#39;s Google. 
 
It said it would create a voluntary code of practice, promote news literacy among social media users, and launch a platform where members can verify questionable news stories. 
 
The platform will be launched by the end of October, Jenni Sargent, managing director of the coalition, said in an email. 
 
There have been growing concerns about Facebook&rsquo;s role in spreading fake stories and its approach to what can and can&rsquo;t be posted on its platform.&nbsp; 
 
In August, Facebook increased the use of automation to select the most-talked about topics of the day for its popular &quot;Trending&quot; feature, as a way to reduce human bias.&nbsp; 
 
Twitter in July swiftly removed posts from Islamic extremists glorifying a truck attack in Nice, France, winning a rare round of praise from watchdog groups for a platform that has often struggled to contain violent propaganda 
 
(WION with inputs from Reuters)

First Draft Coalition was formed in 2015 to create a voluntary code of practice and promote news literacy among social media users

Facebook and Twitter have signed up to a coalition of news and technology companies to tackle fake news and improve the quality of information on social media. First Draft Coalition was formed in June 2015 and its members include the New York Times, BuzzFeed News, CNN, Washington Post and AFP. The coalition was formed with the backing of Alphabet Inc's Google. It said it would create a voluntary code of practice, promote news literacy among social media users, and launch a platform where members can verify questionable news stories. The platform will be launched by the end of October, Jenni Sargent, managing director of the coalition, said in an email. There have been growing concerns about Facebook’s role in spreading fake stories and its approach to what can and can’t be posted on its platform. In August, Facebook increased the use of automation to select the most-talked about topics of the day for its popular "Trending" feature, as a way to reduce human bias. Twitter in July swiftly removed posts from Islamic extremists glorifying a truck attack in Nice, France, winning a rare round of praise from watchdog groups for a platform that has often struggled to contain violent propaganda (WION with inputs from Reuters)

Facebook, Twitter join First Draft Coalition to tackle fake news

fake-news

Fake News, News on Fake News, stories on Fake News, articles on Fake News, Fake News stories at Wion, Fake News news, Fake News latest news