Home | About | Donate

We Need to Address the Serious Danger from Trump's Fake News Awards

We Need to Address the Serious Danger from Trump's Fake News Awards

Dr. Gleb Tsipursky
Mainstream media need to go against its typical style of reporting, and instead align its coverage with behavioral science research.
"Even though many articles covering the Fake News Awards will eventually explain that these awards are meant to perpetuate Trump’s attacks on mainstream media and were awarded at Trump’s sole discretion, the damage will already be done." (Photo: Paul Sableman/flickr/cc)
1 Like

It’s nice when a prominent republican occasionally (mostly rarely) stands up to Trump. Today’s John McCain Washington Post op-ed was a welcome addition.

It’s not like the most important issues often make the news. After all, look how long and deeply anthropomorphic global climate change was suppressed. How often is the true reach of the military discussed? Or the reasons for which it is deployed. Bread and circuses, with one disgusting ringmaster and his sycophantic psychopaths on the high wire.

6 Likes

Not exactly.  Except for the highly political and highly contentious Peace Prize (Adolf Hitler was a nominee in 1934!), the awards are determined by a primarily Swedish committee, and awarded by the King of Sweden – not Norway.  (See The Nobel Prize  A History of Genius, Controversy and Prestige’ by Burton Feldman  Ar­cade Publishing, New York, 2000.)

Russia should win the Fake News Awards hands down. Trump should arrange Putin to be there to accept a prize. He should easily win the prize for best fake news story about Hillary Clinton.

The truth is people rarely really want the truth. They want an echo of what they “think” is truth. Not what they “know” to be true. Someone that really wants and needs the truth will search for it high and low.

I appreciate the article’s advice, but on seeing the term “media
consumer” I bridled. It’s both erroneous and harmful to refer to the
readers of this and other articles as “consumers”.

It’s erroneous because articles such as this one are not consumed by
reading them. On the contrary, each article can be read over and
over, by any number of people.

It’s harmful because it presents articles, whether published by Common
Dreams or anyone else, as a commodity, suggesting that they are as
interchangeable as bottles of ketchup. This deprecates every article,
including this one.

Please join me in shunning that concept. See
https://gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html