How fake news sites frequently trick big-time journalists by Jack Murtha.
From the post:
It would’ve been one hell of a story. Early this month, “news” surfaced that Michael Jordan—yes, the Michael Jordan—had threatened to move his NBA team, the Charlotte Hornets, from North Carolina unless the state repealed a law barring transgender people from using the bathroom of their choice. Air Jordan hadn’t seemed so heroic since he saved Bugs Bunny in the 1996 movie Space Jam.
Except the news was as fictional as the film.
A few sites posing as legitimate news organizations, including one that crudely imitates ABC News’ logo and web address, first published the bunk Jordan story. From there it spread to other media outlets, like Metro US, Elite Daily, and the Dallas Voice. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel even weaponized the false claim in an editorial against North Carolina’s law. For what felt like the millionth time, fake news sites—the kind that say they’re satirical but are nothing like The Onion—had duped journalists into buying a bogus story.
For now, forget the hoaxsters and hoodwinked journalists who continue to fuel this tire fire. The more significant culprits are the companies that enable and reward behavior that empowers fake news. In striving for traffic, prolific output, and social media hype, some newsrooms have prioritized the quick and provocative, while undervaluing reporting. This system has allowed fake news sites to essentially develop best practices to fool journalists. Facebook now lets users flag fake news stories, which then appear less frequently, or with an attached warning, in newsfeeds. But without a top-down cultural shift in journalism, garbage stories will continue to enter the mainstream.
…
I share Murtha’s annoyance with news organizations that don’t emphasize quality reporting but “fake” news stories are only the tip of that iceberg.
It is apparently standard practice with some news outlets to not include links to original press releases or documents discussed in a story. What possible benefit is derived by forcing readers to search for original sources is unclear.
Perhaps it lessens the odds of discovering the reporter didn’t read the document in question? Other suggestions?
Or stories that repeat official propaganda without raising factual or logical errors in such propaganda. The media’s dog like subservience to government on stories of terrorist “propaganda” for example.
How often does your news organization mention countering terrorist “propaganda” is difficult because much of it is true??
Perhaps better, does your news organization ever even ask if terrorist “propaganda” is true?