Category Archives: Fake News

Syracuse University Professor Jennifer Stromer-Galley has been studying social media before it was called social media. Five years ago, she laid out a simple three-point plan to help stem the tide of misinformation on Facebook. Today, those three recommendations remain relevant after a former Facebook employee revealed internal documents that indicate the company was lying about its progress against hate, violence and misinformation on its platform.

Stromer-Galleys plan, outlined in the piece Three ways Facebook could reduce fake news without resorting tocensorship and published by The Conversation, had these three recommendations to fight misinformation.

Option 1: Nudging

One option Facebook could adopt involves using existing lists identifying prescreened reliable andfake-news sites. The site could then alert those who want to share a troublesome article that its source is questionable.

Option 2: Crowdsourcing

Facebook could also use the power of crowdsourcing to help evaluate news sources and indicate when news that is being shared has been evaluated and rated. One important challenge with fake news is that it plays to how our brains are wired. We have mental shortcuts, calledcognitive biases, that help us make decisions when we dont have quite enough information (we never do), or quite enough time (we never do). Generally, these shortcuts work well for us as we make decisions on everything from which route to drive to work to what car to buy But, occasionally, they fail us. Falling for fake news is one of those instances.

Option 3: Algorithmic social distance

The third way that Facebook could help would be to reduce the algorithmic bias that presently exists in Facebook. The site primarily shows posts from those with whom you have engaged on Facebook. In other words, the Facebook algorithm creates what some have called afilter bubble, an online news phenomenon that hasconcerned scholarsfor decades now. If you are exposed only to people with ideas that are like your own, it leads topolitical polarization: Liberals get even more extreme in their liberalism, and conservatives get more conservative.

To schedule an interview with Professor Stromer-Galley, please contact Ellen James Mbuqe, director of media relations at Syracuse University, at ejmbuqe@syr.edu or 412-496-0551.

Stromer-Galley is the author of Presidential Campaigning in the Internet Age and chief investigator for Illuminating 2020, a website dedicated to helping journalists cover US political campaigns. The website provides an interactive database for easy and quick tracking of what candidates are saying on Facebook and Twitter through campaign accounts and paid ads. She is also the Senior Associate Dean for Academic and Faculty Affairs, and Director for the Center for Computational and Data Science at Syracuse Universitys iSchool.

See original here:

How to stop misinformation on social media - Syracuse University News

Ive been contemplating for a long time the disconnect between news outlets and their audiences/readers.

You know, this is the whole Fake News thing and mistrust of the media.

Ive taken a stab at explaining how this paper, particularly, approaches news reporting versus the publics understanding usually misunderstanding of the purpose and meaning of what they read.

Its not been easy to write about this topic, despite my deep concern about it. People are reading things and it is eliciting a reaction different from what was intended. People are reading a news report and getting riled up because they think the news outlet is trying to tell them something they dont think is true.

The media reports that the provincial government wants everyone to have a card proving they have received a COVID-19 vaccine. Some many? most? members of the public perceive that as the media outlet says you should have a card proving youve received a COVID-19 vaccine. But its not the media telling you that, theyre telling you what the province has mandated. But everyone perceives it as the media outlet and the reporter telling you what they want to happen. Its the old shoot the messenger syndrome.

I think the essence of the problem is that people expect and/or believe that news reporting is advocating something. Or should be. But thats not the case. In its purest form, news is just news reporting something that happened or is happening.

But people expect a story to be doing something and, consequently, they think that every story is actively pushing for a certain outcome or point of view. As opposed to just telling you that someone is saying something, doing something or advocating something.

Thats the nub of the problem. When you read a news story it will say Premier John Horgan says, Blah, blah, blah. (not an actual quote). What were telling you is what John Horgan (or anybody else) said.

But people perceive it as reporter Alistair Taylor says, Blah, blah blah. You need to read it more closely. Again, its not Reporter X saying something, shes just quoting the subject who made that statement.

There is such a thing as advocacy journalism but thats not what most reporters are producing plus advocacy journalism is biased, its advocating for a certain outcome or belief. In mainstream media, advocacy journalism falls under the umbrella of opinion and is usually dressed up as a column, an opinion piece that is the view of the writer. What youre reading here is a column, an opinion piece and its labelled as such.

Now and this is the exception that many people believe proves the rule there are instances of journalists deliberately pushing an agenda or deliberately or mistakenly but those are clawed back as soon as its pointed out.

So, when a reporter writes that the Living Oceans Society wants fish farms out of the Broughton Archipelago, many people read that as the Campbell River Mirror wants fish farms out of the Broughton Archipelago. This is a crucial misunderstanding of journalistic process and the source of a lot of misunderstanding and strife.

We are the medium (get it, media?) through which the news reaches you. We didnt say a northbound pick up truck swerved out of its lane, crossed the median and collided with a southbound semi truck. The police did. We tell you what the police tell us.

Its hard for this to not sound patronizing but the level of misunderstanding is alarming and, sadly to us in the media, baffling. I heard the phrase many years ago People read what they want to read and Im sad to say its often true.

Another aspect of this is that if what we write doesnt say what you want it to say, then its biased, incorrect and, God forbid, fake. Sorry people, but youre going to read things that you dont agree with. That doesnt make them wrong.

In the end, were just presenting to you information whether it be a quote or from some other source (document, file, eyewitnesses) that weve collected to support the point of the story youre reading.

If its the writers opinion, well tell you. Otherwise, look at the source and understand that its the sources actions, opinions or wishes that are being presented to you. In the best case, scenario, well present the other side of the argument but thats not always possible in the same piece (but it often is) but at some point, the other side or sides of the argument will get put on the public agenda. And well report that.

Im such a cynic, of course, that even having explained this now, I dont believe it will change anybodys mind or lead anybody to any greater understanding of the mechanics of news reporting but I feel I have to try.

journalism

See more here:

Is it fake news or is it just news you dont agree with? columnist - Campbell River Mirror

Donald Trump and his then-running mate, Mike Pence, embrace as they shake hands after Pence's acceptance speech at the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland. Mary Altaffer/AP hide caption

Donald Trump and his then-running mate, Mike Pence, embrace as they shake hands after Pence's acceptance speech at the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland.

Former President Donald Trump continued to champion the lie that he was unfairly stripped of office in the White House race against President Biden, saying Wednesday that the "real insurrection" happened on Election Day 2020.

"The Unselect Committee of partisan Democrats, and two very weak and pathetic RINOs, should come to the conclusion after spending many millions of dollars, that the real insurrection happened on November 3rd, the Presidential Election, not on January 6thwhich was a day of protesting the Fake Election results," Trump said in an unfounded, conspiratorial statement.

The deadly January insurrection at the U.S. Capitol was egged on by Trump in the waning days of his single-term presidency, with protesters some of whom waved anti-American flags storming the Capitol building in an attempt to stop the certification of Biden's election victory.

High-ranking lawmakers, including then-Vice President Mike Pence, had to be evacuated to safety as some of the protesters threatened violence, including chants of "Hang Mike Pence," against those inside.

Trump's statement comes after Pence, himself a major target of the insurrectionists' ire, attempted to downplay the bloody riot as little more than a protest by rightfully aggrieved Americans.

"I know the media wants to distract from the Biden administration's failed agenda by focusing on one day in January," Pence said during a Monday interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity. "They want to use that one day to try and demean the character and intentions of 74 million Americans who believed we could be strong again and prosperous again and supported our administration in 2016 and 2020."

After Trump left office, Pence had tried to distance himself from Trump about the insurrection, saying he and the former president would never see "eye to eye" about the day.

Pence's new comments come as many Republican officials are rallying behind Trump and excusing the behavior of some on Jan. 6. Crossing Trump is seen as politically problematic for Republicans seeking relevance and want a future in politics.

Pence, who establishment Republicans had initially hoped would serve as a counterweight to Trump's most brash instincts, ultimately came to serve Trump loyally in the White House and beyond, as did much of the party leadership.

In the Monday interview, Pence said he and Trump had parted amicably after the insurrection and that he and Trump have talked "a number of times" since leaving office.

Trump on Wednesday praised Pence's Hannity interview, claiming it "destroys and discredits the Unselect Committees [sic] Witch Hunt on the events of January 6th."

He added, "It will continue anyways, however, because the Fake News doesn't want to focus on Afghanistan, Russia, Taiwan and China, the Border, inflation, and a failing economy."

Trump continues to stoke speculation that he could run again for the presidency in 2024. This weekend, he is heading to the early state of Iowa to give a speech.

View post:

Trump continues to lie, says 'real insurrection' happened when he lost election - NPR

A TIME OUTSIDE THIS TIMEBy Amitava Kumar

It is February 2020. Satya, the narrator of Amitava Kumars new novel, A Time Outside This Time, is at an artists residency on an island in Italy. Like Kumar, Satya was born in Bihar, an eastern state in India, but has lived for much of his adult life in the United States. Troubled by the election of divisive leaders in the two countries he calls home, Satya has traveled halfway across the world to this idyllic villa on a hill to work on a novel, Enemies of the People. What is the book about? It is a report, he writes, from the world of #fakenews.

Satya is among the novelists who went through a crisis of faith after the 2016 presidential election. Ever since the former White House adviser Kellyanne Conway dropped the phrase alternative facts on TV, some American fiction writers have wondered if all they are doing day in and day out is make up lies. Satya, too, is skeptical about the power of the imagination in a post-truth world. Just as a new virus named Covid-19 is going around, he is busy trying to transform a lifetime of journal entries, scrapbooks of newspaper clippings, and descriptions of a few psychological experiments relayed to him by his wife, Vaani, into what he hopes will be a referendum on facts. When he isnt working, he is either reading 1984 George Orwell was also born in Bihar or on Twitter. Satya is the Hindi word for truth, vaani for voice: This is the sort of novel where even the characters names are preeningly literal.

The problem with Satyas crusade against misinformation is that too often he is just passing on breaking news alerts. The truths he espouses are factual, not emotional. Vaani is blandly introduced as a psychologist who lives in the world of experiments. Husband and wife seem to talk about nothing but research models of cognitive behavior; a casual conversation about their 9-year-old daughter telling lies becomes a freshman primer on positive and negative reinforcement. Satyas earnestness is grating. While reporting on tensions between India and Pakistan in 2001, he deems his own prose untouched by jingoism and honest about the cost of war. He imagines firing back at audience members who ask annoying questions at literary festivals with a question or two of his own: Whom did you vote for? Have you done any worthwhile reading? He has convictions, but no precision, and the story doesnt remotely test his beliefs. In the absence of self-revelations, there isnt much to keep you turning the pages.

Was it Orwell who once wrote that an autobiography can be trusted only if it discloses something disgraceful? Halfway through the novel, Satya stops working on Enemies of the People. He becomes an information junkie, obsessively noting down the days headlines in India and the United States, shoring up fragments of an essay on the art of literary fiction and lies. Reality has obviously overwhelmed the novelist in Satya, and yet we get scarcely any sense of his inner turmoil. The plot consists of him mostly lounging around the opulent villa, giving in to fits of complacent despair. Do you remember the days immediately after Trump took office? he reminds the reader at one point. When some residents leave the island because of the pandemic, he claims that as much as we fear the virus, we ought to be worried about the killer inside us.

The book reads like a mash-up of two genres: autofiction and the post-apocalyptic novel. Except that the apocalypse here is just the news, which Satya follows online from the safety of the villa, and later, when lockdowns are enforced everywhere, from his house in upstate New York. Kumar writes supple sentences, but Satyas reflections are too vicarious to sustain interest. His provocations arent startling enough; his thoughts can quickly lapse into a trite but well-meaning op-ed. You cant help feeling that the novel lacks precisely the humanity that Satya demands from our leaders, an inherent and sometimes disquieting proximity to other lives.

See the original post:

A Novelist Reports From the World of #FakeNews - The New York Times

To be or not to be?

Is it fake news or real news?

Do we believe the facts in the stories we read and then share the bogus contents with unsuspecting family and friends?

When pondering such agonizing questions while reading stories on social media, one often wonders. I know I do.

If your inquiring mind wants to know the truth, I encourage you to check out Not Real News: A look at what didnt happen this week, compliments of the Associated Press.

The weekly article is a roundup of the most popular but completely untrue stories and visuals of the week.

None of these are legit, the Associated Press writes, even though shared widely on social media.

Which, of course, creates quite the conundrum.

From politics to all things COVID-19 (and everything in between), the AP doggedly sorts out the falsities.

Duping the public, however, has been around for a century or more.

Publishing fake news began in the early 19th century in earnest when newspapers began writing exposes and larger than life stories to increase circulation.

In 1835, the New York Sun published a series of six articles claiming that an alien civilization lived on the moon.

The astronomical observations were supposedly made by astronomer Sir John Herschel.

It was called the Great Moon Hoax. Duping the public, for sure.

These days, fake news has a life of its own. It is a 24/7 circulating quagmire of things that didnt happen.

And let me tell you that each week, a lot of things didnt happen.

Want the truth? Long for the real scoop? Tired of being hoodwinked?

Not Real News: A look at what didnt happen this week. Social media, beware!

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Alvia Lewis Frey is a columnist for the Pharos-Tribune. Contact her at alewisfrey@aol.com.

See the original post:

Alvia Lewis Frey column: A look at what didn't happen this week in fake news - pharostribune.com

MINSK, 4 October (BelTA) In the interview with the TV channel CNN Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko pointed to numerous misrepresentations in the questions of journalist Matthew Chance, BelTA has learned.

At the very beginning of the interview, the journalist mentioned some overused fakes about human rights violations and the use of force by law enforcement officers during last year's events. It became clear at that moment that Matthew Chance's objectives were not to ask questions and get answers to them. In violation of the rules of journalism, he suggested that Aleksandr Lukashenko should use this interview as an opportunity to apologize to Belarusian people.

No, I would not like to take this opportunity. If I would, I would do that through the Belarusian media. They do their job well. What is the point of doing it on CNN? I do not think this is even a relevant question, and in principle I have nothing to apologize for, and the latest events in Belarus are a testimony to that, the president responded.

However, the journalist kept insisting. He spoke about the conditions of detention citing information from the internet and some human rights organizations instead of reliable and credible sources.

The head of state answered that there is not a single detention center in Belarus that could compare to Guantanamo, or those bases that the United States and Great Britain set up in Eastern Europe: So one learns by comparison, hence my answer to your question - I do not think you will come out looking any better.

As to our detention centers, where we keep those accused or those under investigation, they are no worse than in Britain or the United States. I can guarantee you that, Aleksandr Lukashenko said.

Speaking about human rights organizations, the Belarusian leader noted that one should not always trust them. For example, human rights organizations in Syria accused Syrians, Russians and others of using biological weapons. You even showed this, then it turned out to be video manipulation. Yet, human rights organizations were involved. So maybe in Belarus, too, you are being prompted by these human rights organizations, Aleksandr Lukashenko said.

Although the CNN journalist listened to the answers, he continued to persistently repeat the same set of fake news that are spread by the opponents of the government. One of them is about those killed in the 2020 riots. I know that special equipment was used on 8 or 9 August when those people controlled from abroad attacked our police on the barricades, the head of state said. As a result, one of active participants of the riots was injured and the president was informed about that incident. But it was not the case of the police going somewhere to find and kill this person. That was not what happened. He came to kill them. He was an ex-con, by the way, pardoned by me, Aleksandr Lukashenko said.

As for other deaths mentioned by Matthew Chance, those were nothing but deliberate attempts to put the blame for everything on the authorities, the Belarusian leader is convinced. You can hang anything on this period - some died of COVID, some died of asthma, some had cancer. And our protesters put all of them on the same list. Then you read the list and were happy because it was what you needed, the president said. Aleksandr Lukashenko recommended that the journalist get to the bottom of it, and offered his help if needed.

I suggest you discuss concrete facts, and not the views or statements of some dubious human rights organizations. Everything that you have just said is fake and fantasy. I guarantee you it is fake and fantasy, the head of state said.

It is not appropriate for a channel like CNN to quote all kinds of lies from the internet. Someone must have wanted you to do this, that is why I would not advise you repeating it all, Aleksandr Lukashenko said.

Here is the original post:

Lukashenko responds to fake news in interview with CNN - Belarus News (BelTA)

The Friends of the Dartmouth Libraries will be hostinga discussion an in-person talk on the dangers of fake news and how to spot it.

The talk will be held Wednesday, Oct. 13 at 6 p.m. the Haskell Auditorium at Southworth Library, 732 Dartmouth St.

Bristol Community College researchers Emily Brown and Susan Souza-Mort willintroduce audience members to the dark world of misinformation and show how to fact check the information they find in print and online.

Brown is Coordinator of Library Research and Instruction at Bristol Community College's Fall River Campus. Her research interests include misinformation, self-radicalization, and foreign disinformation campaigns.

Souza-Mort is a research and instruction librarian at the colleges New Bedford campus.runs the Open Educational Resources Program, which gives students access to free resources to save on textbook expenses. Souza-Mort is also an adjunct history professor and academic liaison to the STEM academic area at the college.

In accordance with the Dartmouth Board of Health guidelines, audience members are strongly encouraged tomask-up indoors regardless of vaccination status due to the presence of the highly infectious Delta variant of Covid-19.

For more information, emailfodl.libraries@gmail.com.

Read the rest here:

Learn to identify 'fake news' | Dartmouth - Dartmouth Week

The proliferation of unverified news reports is not unique to South Korea. As more people consume news online, often taking what they find on social media to be truthful and reliable, the problem of misinformation has become global, deepening political divides and complicating efforts to preserve election integrity and fight the pandemic. But government attempts to stem the flow of misinformation have raised questions about free speech, censorship, and democratic backsliding.

Hardly a day passes without newspapers and social media accounts in South Korea carrying poorly sourced reports of corruption that candidates in next years presidential race have called fake news. The fight intensified after Cho Kuk, a key ally of Moon, resigned as justice minister in 2019 amid allegations of ethical lapses and financial wrongdoing by his family. The scandal rocked Moons administration, and Chos supporters and critics heatedly accused each other of spreading false information to influence public opinion.

Moon said last week that the country needed a stronger measure to fight the fake news and false reporting that has caused much harm to the state and individuals. He then began distancing himself from the bill after concerns were raised at home and abroad.

Journalists unions in South Korea, which are usually sympathetic toward Moons liberal government, have criticized the bill. The main conservative opposition, the People Power Party, called it a dictatorial attempt by Moons government to muzzle unfriendly media.

Domestic media and international rights groups have also spoken out against it, warning that the bills fuzzy definitions of untrue reports, harm and malicious intent would lead to self-censorship among journalists and limit the publication of unpopular and minority opinions.

Moons party has pushed a slate of recent bills aimed at stamping out misinformation, including false narratives about sensitive historical topics. Some of the bills have already become law.

The bill that was postponed this week targeted print, online, and broadcast news media. It proposed a revision to South Koreas Press Arbitration Act that would allow local courts to impose punitive damages on media outlets that publish false news by intent or through grave negligence or that infringes on personal rights, causes property damage or inflicts psychological distress.

The bill called for punitive damages that amount to up to five times the actual loss caused by the false news report. Moons party hoped the hefty financial penalties would force media outlets to take the fact-checking process more seriously.

Disproportionate sanctions such as heavy fines can have a significant chilling effect on freedom of expression in South Korea, which is already constrained by criminal defamation laws that should be abolished, Human Rights Watch said in a statement.

Speaking to journalists last week, Irene Khan, the United Nations special rapporteur for freedom of expression and opinion, voiced concerns that the amendment vaguely defined fake news and that offenders would face a disproportionate penalty.

On Tuesday night, Moons party recognized that the bill was too risky to pass as it was. Lawmakers agreed to shelve the bill and allow the opposing parties to continue to negotiate until the end of the year.

Even before the new bill had been introduced, victims of false news reports in South Korea were able to seek remedies, including corrections and compensation. They could also sue news organizations for defamation, which is a criminal offense in the country. Supporters of the new bill said that the financial penalties in South Korea had been too small.

Between 2009 and 2018, 2,220 civil lawsuits were filed seeking compensation over false news. Less than 40 percent of them resulted in financial settlements, which averaged $16,600, according to data from the countrys Press Arbitration Commission. Nearly half of the victims who won settlements were paid $4,260 or less.

In a survey last year by Media Today, an online news publication, four-fifths of the 1,000 respondents supported imposing punitive damages against media outlets for publishing misinformation.

News organizations have complained that the new bill will allow courts to take an organizations revenue into account when awarding damages, which means bigger and more influential mainstream broadcasters and newspapers with the resources to do investigative work would likely face the most severe damages.

Moons governing camp has been in an acrimonious relationship with South Koreas largest newspapers for some time. The newspapers, which are all conservative, have been highly critical of the policies and scandals surrounding Moons administration.

On Tuesday, the governing party swore that it has not given up on severe punitive damages for publishing misinformation.

We can no longer pretend that there is nothing wrong when irresponsible news reporting drives businesses to bankruptcy and ruins the lives and reputation of individuals, Song Young-Gil, head of the party, said in August. He said likening the bill to gagging the press was tantamount to demanding the right to publish fake and manipulated news.

See the original post here:

South Korea shelves 'fake news' bill amid international outcry - The Boston Globe

Fake news can have dangerous consequences; this was true even in ancient times when, without print or electronic media, a lie could only spread through word of mouth.

Today, with the advent of social media, where news travels with lightning speed and can reach millions in seconds, the potential of concocted news to not only cause injury to persons, but even unrest and destabilisation in a state is immense. A recent example of such deliberate disinformation to cause harm to Pakistan was the Indian medias fabricated story that the Pakistan Army was involved in military operations in Afghanistan and assisting the Taliban. Another example was the false news of a possible attack on the New Zealand cricket team which led to cancellation of the tour.

The draft bill moved in the US Senate seeking sanctions against Pakistan is indeed also a result of intentional misinformation. The most ridiculous fake news was the one that the US used regarding Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. The result was utter destruction.

The Quran directs as follows: O you who believe! If an evil doer comes to you with a news, verify it, lest you harm a people in ignorance, then be sorry for what you have done. (Verse 49:6). There is also this beautiful Hadith: It is enough of a lie, for a man (without verifying) to narrate everything he hears. (Sahih Muslim, Vol 1, Hadith 7)

It is argued that, notwithstanding the magnitude of the harm, there should be no regulation to tackle the matter of fake news because any such control would be contrary to the fundamental right of freedom of speech and information, and eventually lead to censorship and hurt democracy. The fear is that under the garb of regulating fake news, a government will be able to control the media.

I too believe that the answer does not lie in over-regulation as such a law or rule will be counter-productive and will be eventually struck down by the courts as contrary to the constitution.

However, the government is also responsible for safeguarding its citizens and protecting national interest. It is not therefore possible to simply do nothing. The solution lies in achieving a correct balance, and managing the menace.

One way in which some countries are successfully attempting to diminish the effect of fake news is to encourage professional bodies as fact checkers whose job is to detect fake news. Our government is tech savvy and too needs to encourage Pakistan-based independent fact checkers, with the objective to inform media houses and the public of the results of the research.

At the same time, any government wanting to deal with fake news in social media, will have to work closely with major players like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc to remove fake news content. For this purpose any rules which are made must be consensus-based and ensure that no power is given to any institution to simply stop the dissemination of information as fake news just because the story is not to the liking of a government.

Regarding traditional media, one must remember that the legitimacy of a TV channel or newspaper depends on the authenticity of its news, and once the reputation of any media house is tarnished for repeatedly publishing fake news, people will stop watching the channel or reading the newspaper. It is this risk of ruining ones reputation and losing business that is a real deterrence against publication of fake news.

However the most effective remedy against false news, on social media particularly, is to strengthen the print media. TV and radio are increasingly struggling to combat accuracy because of the need to give news promptly (truth suffers and the professionalism of a journalist is sacrificed at the altar of the need to be the first to give breaking news). Often the electronic media is forced to publish internet-based stories only to find that the news is bogus. This causes mass-confusion and gives room to miscreants to continue to advance their illegitimate objects.

But the problem of competing with the speed of social media does not affect written newspapers. People turn (and in the future will increasingly do so) to print media to check the authenticity of stories appearing on social media, media channels and even tabloids. The government should trust media houses and maintain a mutual relationship with them, which will ultimately expose inaccuracy and falsehood. At the same time, the r respected newspapers of the country have to strengthen their own professionalism, regulations and policies of verification and self-restraint, to become even more relevant. Only the prestigious media houses will survive.

Finally no campaign, laws or regulations against fake news can be successful, until the public becomes discerning enough to shift the chaff from the grain and judge what is true or false. There is a conversation reported about Socrates with someone which runs as follows: Someone approached Socrates and sought permission to tell him what a member of a committee had said about him. Socrates said, First let me know if it will benefit me? The talebearer replied, No, it would not benefit you. Socrates then asked, Will it benefit you? The talebearer responded, No. It will not benefit me. Socrates then questioned, Will it benefit the community? The talebearer replied, No. It will not benefit the community. Socrates turned his back from the talebearer and said In that case I am not interested in knowing what the gentleman had said about me, and then walked away.

I would earnestly believe that this kind of attitude has to be adopted generally by the people of Pakistan and particularly by parliamentarians, elites and those influential who are gossip prone. The people will follow their leaders behaviour.

The writer is a practising advocate of the Supreme Court, a current senator and chairman of theSenate Standing Committee on Law and Justice.

Email: [emailprotected] com

Twitter: syedalizafar1

See the rest here:

Fake news - The News International

President Moon Jae-in and his Democratic Party in South Korea have spent months vowing to stamp out what they have called fake news in the media. But lawmakers had to postpone a vote on a new bill this week when they encountered a problem: no one can agree on exactly how to do it.

Moons party, which controls a majority in the parliament, submitted the bill in August, touting it as one of the last major reforms of his administration before his five-year term ends in May. The bill triggered an outcry from domestic media and international rights groups that warned it would discourage journalists from investigating corruption scandals and would have a chilling effect on press freedoms.

The proliferation of unverified news reports is not unique to South Korea. As more people consume news online, often taking what they find on social media to be truthful and reliable, the problem of misinformation has become global, deepening political divides and complicating efforts to preserve election integrity and fight the pandemic. But government attempts to stem the flow of misinformation have raised questions about free speech, censorship and democratic backsliding.

Hardly a day passes without newspapers and social media accounts in South Korea carrying poorly sourced reports of corruption that candidates in next years presidential race have called fake news. The fight intensified after Cho Kuk, a key ally of Moon, resigned as justice minister in 2019 amid allegations of ethical lapses and financial wrongdoing by his family. The scandal rocked Moons administration, and Chos supporters and critics heatedly accused each other of spreading false information to influence public opinion.

Also read |US surpasses 700,000 Covid deaths as California schools make vaccines compulsory

Moon said last week that the country needed a stronger measure to fight the fake news and false reporting that has caused much harm to the state and individuals. He then began distancing himself from the bill after concerns were raised at home and abroad.

Journalists unions in South Korea, which are usually sympathetic toward Moons liberal government, have criticized the bill. The main conservative opposition, the People Power Party, called it a dictatorial attempt by Moons government to muzzle unfriendly media.

Domestic media and international rights groups have also spoken out against it, warning that the bills fuzzy definitions of untrue reports, harm and malicious intent would lead to self-censorship among journalists and limit the publication of unpopular and minority opinions.

Moons party has pushed a slate of recent bills aimed at stamping out misinformation, including false narratives about sensitive historical topics. Some of the bills have already become law.

The bill that was postponed this week targeted print, online and broadcast news media. It proposed a revision to South Koreas Press Arbitration Act that would allow local courts to impose punitive damages on media outlets that publish false news by intent or through grave negligence or that infringes on personal rights, causes property damage or inflicts psychological distress.

The bill called for punitive damages that amount to up to five times the actual loss caused by the false news report. Moons party hoped the hefty financial penalties would force media outlets to take the fact-checking process more seriously.

Disproportionate sanctions such as heavy fines can have a significant chilling effect on freedom of expression in South Korea, which is already constrained by criminal defamation laws that should be abolished, Human Rights Watch said in a statement.

Speaking to journalists last week, Irene Khan, the United Nations special rapporteur for freedom of expression and opinion, voiced concerns that the amendment vaguely defined fake news and that offenders would face a disproportionate penalty.

On Tuesday night, Moons party recognised that the bill was too risky to pass as it was. Lawmakers agreed to shelve the bill and allow the opposing parties to continue to negotiate until the end of the year.

Even before the new bill had been introduced, victims of false news reports in South Korea were able to seek remedies, including corrections and compensation. They could also sue news organizations for defamation, which is a criminal offense in the country. Supporters of the new bill said that the financial penalties in South Korea had been too small.

Between 2009 and 2018, 2,220 lawsuits were filed seeking compensation over false news. Less than 40% of them resulted in financial settlements, which averaged $16,600, according to data from the countrys Press Arbitration Commission. Nearly half of the victims who won settlements were paid $4,260 or less.

In a survey last year by Media Today, an online news publication, four-fifths of the 1,000 respondents supported imposing punitive damages against media outlets for publishing misinformation.

News organizations have complained that the new bill will allow courts to take an organizations revenue into account when awarding damages, which means bigger and more influential mainstream broadcasters and newspapers with the resources to do investigative work would likely face the most severe damages.

Moons governing camp has been in an acrimonious relationship with South Koreas largest newspapers for some time. The newspapers, which are all conservative, have been highly critical of the policies and scandals surrounding Moons administration.

On Tuesday, the governing party swore that it has not given up on severe punitive damages for publishing misinformation.

We can no longer pretend that there is nothing wrong when irresponsible news reporting drives businesses to bankruptcy and ruins the lives and reputation of individuals, Song Young-Gil, head of the party, said in August. He said likening the bill to gagging the press was tantamount to demanding the right to publish fake and manipulated news.

See more here:

South Korea shelves Fake News bill amid international outcry - WION