Slavoj Zizek on Trump & Fake News

[Jazzrook]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ9vf9mRyq8

[Tetrachord]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ9vf9mRyq8

I find this fellow a bit of a ratbag; many times I've seen and heard his rants.

Having said that, I think Trump is seriously deranged and I'm terribly worried about the fate of the USA and global stability generally. The only hope of getting rid of this sore on the body politic is from the Republicans who, themselves, will have to face the electorate - way before Trump. Collapse will come from inside. The people were faced with "Hobson's Choice" in their election and now its time to face reality.

I think Britain's system of a constitutional monarchy is the best one possible. Beware the popularly-elected, powerful President!!!

[french frank]

I think Britain's system of a constitutional monarchy is the best one possible. Beware the popularly-elected, powerful President!!!

It is one argument in favour. I don't really think the idea (also from America?) of elected all-powerful mayors has worked very well down here either. One argument for the current House of Lords is that it does actually work quite well …

But on topic, it does seem as if people prefer to believe the information/news which comes from the 'horse's mouth', unmediated by the press itself. That seems to mean that they will believe what they are already predisposed to believe - according to the BBC's clip on the subject this morning ('Where do Trump's supporters get their news from?'). The press has by definition 'fake news' because it isn't what people want to hear.

[Dave2002]

Donald Trump aide accuses BBC of 'fake news'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39000118

and from the 'horses' mouth

Donald Trump says press is 'out of control'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38997075

[teamsaint]

It is one argument in favour. I don't really think the idea (also from America?) of elected all-powerful mayors has worked very well down here either. One argument for the current House of Lords is that it does actually work quite well …

But on topic, it does seem as if people prefer to believe the information/news which comes from the 'horse's mouth', unmediated by the press itself. That seems to mean that they will believe what they are already predisposed to believe - according to the BBC's clip on the subject this morning ('Where do Trump's supporters get their news from?'). The press has by definition 'fake news' because it isn't what people want to hear.

do you have a link to that FF ?

Perhaps, just perhaps, the Fake News thing will spark a proper , national debate about the quality of information we are given, sometimes " from the horses mouth".
The biggest responsibility lies with those with the greatest power, particularly the government and the BBC.

So, time to stop giving us " news" like this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12091758

and time to start rebuilding trust,the lack of which is surely the source of much " fake news."

[french frank]

do you have a link to that FF ?

The internet and … 'Breitbart was most trusted.'

[Dave2002]

A very recent 'fake news' issue is that of pollution, notionally due to diesel vehicles, in and around London.

Many people seem upset at the proposal to introduce a scrappage scheme, and have expressed dismay that they were encouraged to buy diesel vehicles some years ago as less polluting. I think a more detached and considered view is called for.

Possibly the previous advice was incorrect, but not necessarily intentionally so. Sensible ways to get pollution down may not involve immediate scrapping of relatively new vehicles, or abandoning adoption of hybrid or electric vehicles, or abandoning public transport improvements because they may be based on 'flawed' climate change and other arguments.

The notion that some news - perhaps based on scientific evidence - is part of a conspiracy (what for?) so we can therefore ignore it is IMO foolish in the extreme.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/12/london-mayor-plans-to-scrap-diesels

[jean]

A very recent 'fake news' issue is that of pollution, notionally due to diesel vehicles, in and around London...

What's 'fake' about that?

And ts's quote above about projected life expectancy - I don't see what's wrong with that, either.

[french frank]

So, time to stop giving us " news" like this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12091758

This was reporting (Dec 2010) a statement from the DWP based on ONS life expectancy statistics. The quotes in the headlines around 'to survive beyond 100' indicate that it is not the BBC making a statement but quoting another source.

What exactly is the complaint about the BBC report?

[Dave2002]

What's 'fake' about that?

And ts's quote above about projected life expectancy - I don't see what's wrong with that, either.

We're into Sir Humphrey territory here.

It's not untrue that some people have complained about the Mayor of London's suggestion for scrapping diesel vehicles. I did use the word issue relating to the diesel engine reporting.

Re the life expecancy issue, it's not untrue that some people have predicted greater longevity - but whether that will actually happen remains to be seen. It is speculation, and there may be too great an element of opinion in that.

We can get too far separated from real news, as in "It is true that ff reported, correctly that the BBC had reported that the DWP, based on ONS statistics had suggested that in the next 20 years life expectancy will rise to over 100 - for some people" - which is approximately true. Is that seriously news?

Back to vehicles.

Years ago there were definite incentives and suggestions that diesel vehicles were environmentally friendlier than petrol - something which is now questionable. This would have been based largely on fuel consumption, which is still generally better for diesel cars than petrol models. I don't think the information was deliberately false - or perhaps I'm too trusting. I do know people who bought diesel cars believing that they were helping to minimise environmental damage. Now it appears that there were some aspects of pollution which were not covered, which have now been found to be "a bad thing", hence the need for a change in policies and incentives.

Although this has now been seem to be mistaken, I am prepared to believe that it was simply reasonable advice at the time, but has now been found wanting.

However, other aspects of the motor industry, such as deliberately modifying cars or falsifying emissions readings which have come to light in recent years don't leave us in too much doubt that there are people and organisations out there who/which are very capable of giving deliberately untrue or incomplete "truths" if it suits their agenda or their businesses.

[french frank]

Although this has now been seem to be mistaken, I am prepared to believe that it was simply reasonable advice at the time, but has now been found wanting.

There are a couple of new articles about 'fake news' on Wikipedia now, posted in the last few weeks. The point about 'fake news' is that it is untrue, fabricated, and known to be untrue by those who first publish it. Its intention is to mislead - and to influence.

Issues like diesel-fuelled cars is like the advice to lay young babies on their front in cots - which wasn't intended to cause cot deaths. When the advice is proved to be wrong, it should be corrected and acted on: this has nothing to do with 'fake news'.

[teamsaint]

This was reporting (Dec 2010) a statement from the DWP based on ONS life expectancy statistics. The quotes in the headlines around 'to survive beyond 100' indicate that it is not the BBC making a statement but quoting another source.

What exactly is the complaint about the BBC report?

For a start, it isn't really news . It isn't directly affecting anybody in the recent past, present or near future. At best, being very generous, it is a start point for a discussion. By presenting as " News" on what is still the UK's most influential news source, it is given a prominence that it doesn't deserve, and shouldn't have.

As importantly, that report is in the realms of fantasy.
Here it is presented in the trusty old Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/aug/04/live-to-100-likely

So 26% of males born in 2011 will live to 100 ?
That is fantasy, speculation at best , and needs to be treated with the utmost caution. And that is being generous. It is extrapolated from stats that are, by definition 100 years old.
It doesn't help the discussion around aging population, because it presents an utterly false picture of the likely future.

My complaint about the BBC in this case would be that it should present news as news, and it should treat this sort of government output in an other, more appropriate fashion.

[jayne lee wilson]

Donald Trump aide accuses BBC of 'fake news'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39000118

and from the 'horses' mouth

Donald Trump says press is 'out of control'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38997075

Oh, DO watch that first one, the interview with Sebastian Gorka - I saw it live last night over supper, I felt like cheering and punching the air, Evan Davis as so often was an absolute hero in it, and there's Gorka, with his smug sarcastic smiles, and all questions avoided, accusing the media (especially CNN & BBC) of propagating fake news about Trump, such an easy evasion...... this is happening nearly every night now and Newsnight has never seemed more important as it exposes this astounding parade of White House-newspeak apparatchiks, each story more fantastical and potentially dangerous for world peace and civilised humanity, than the last...

We need something similar here to challenge the Brexiteer-press's news-domineering lies, and very badly too! The Guardian is almost alone in keeping the ruthlessly-exposing flame alive. But it's harder for the BBC because of the demand for "balance"...

Never mind stories about longevity, long live BBC2 Newsnight!

Out in the garden now for some therapeutic shrub hacking, Jackdaws wheeling overhead...

[teamsaint]

Stories about longevity, just as one example, that are clearly not much short of propaganda are part of the problem, not something apart from it.

A generation of young people have been taken to the cleaners by successive governments, including Labour, and it really does matter, it really does hurt.

Many of them face 50/100k of debt to pay for an education that gets them pay levels that won't buy a house, or flat anywhere near a job. And lies about longevity, to persuade them of the need for a 50 year working life, which the lawmakers will NEVER have to do, are a part of the problem.

The young graduates working at my company just laugh at the thought of actually having a mortgage.

Fake news does matter, but those we are supposed to trust need to be above suspicion. and too often, they aren't.

[french frank]

For a start, it isn't really news .

What do you mean by 'isn't really news'? If the DWP publishes a report, and the BBC reports that fact, with the accompanying details, that's news.

It isn't directly affecting anybody in the recent past, present or near future. At best, being very generous, it is a start point for a discussion. By presenting as " News" on what is still the UK's most influential news source, it is given a prominence that it doesn't deserve, and shouldn't have.

That's defining 'news' in a way I don't recognise.

As importantly, that report is in the realms of fantasy.
Here it is presented in the trusty old Guardian.

So the criticism is that the BBC has presented the facts, as they were reported, in an inaccurate way? You obviously have a clearer grasp of what the report is about than I do. Where I disagree with you is in saying the BBC shouldn't be reporting such an item at all (though preferably with complete accuracy, though I don't see that any damage is done).

So 26% of males born in 2011 will live to 100 ?

I'm getting pie-eyed trying to work that out - does the BBC report say that?