Perhaps the greatest public relations coup of our age has been the right wing’s swift and thorough hostile takeover of the term “fake news”. When the label began to go viral during the 2016 campaign season, it was generally applied to false stories that promoted the unprincipled mountebank who ended up in the White House. Within a matter of weeks, however, it had completely flipped and was being used almost exclusively to designate true stories that did not promote him. Almost overnight, Fox “News” went from ridiculing the very idea that fake news existed at all, to branding anything and everything “fake news” that doesn’t support white nationalism or other forms of right-wing radicalism. Every reactionary demagogue who’s ever crawled from under a rock jumped on this lucrative bandwagon. It was inevitable that this would include a savvy hustler like Ben Shapiro, whom we’ve encountered before.
A case in point is his article for the ever-entertaining National Review that is worth examining mostly because it’s very typical of how wingers have redefined fake news to suit their ends, and how they pull switcheroos in general. (Otherwise, I wouldn’t be discussing it — I sure as hell don’t want to give him any more attention than warranted.) It’s titled A Field Guide to Harvard’s Field Guide on ‘Fake News’. Sounds like he’s trying to debunk a debunking and now someone needs to debunk his debunking of a debunking. You’ve heard of that old curse: “May you live in interesting times.”
Here’s his beginning, with added annotation for your convenience:
Last week, Harvard released a new research guide on “fake news.” “Fake news,” of course, is the source of all evil, according to the Left. [Has anybody, left, right or center, ever claimed that fake news is the problem?] It’s only thanks to lies that (45) was elected! [Largely quite true] Instead of targeting stories that are completely false, however, the Left applies the label of “fake news” to outlets that report factual stories but draw political conclusions. [Does this mean he believes Fox is leftist?]
In other words, he realizes that the “left-leaning” (i.e., not rabidly right-wing) CNN isn’t really fake news, but is okay with it being labeled as such anyway because he doesn’t approve of its slant (or at least thinks he doesn’t). Exactly the kind of attitude he’s accusing “the left” of having.
Not only is he confused about what fake news is, he’s even confused about the specific resource he’s trying to attack.
Nonetheless, the Harvard guide, written by “social justice” professor Melissa Zimdars of Merrimack College, purports to compile a handy-dandy list of fake-news sites to avoid.
One must infer that the “Harvard guide” he’s referring to (it was published just before his attack) is Harvard Library’s webpage Fake News, Misinformation and Propaganda (note the broader scope than just fake news). But for what it’s worth, it’s not referred to as a “field guide”, More important, it does not list any specific outlets to avoid. Nor was it written by Prof. Zimdars. But other than that.
What the site actually does is list links to investigative resources. These include news databases like LexisNexis, browser plugins like This Is Fake, and fact-checking sites like Politifact and Snopes. These latter are especially troubling to true believing wingers. They absolutely hate fact checkers, and consequently circulate rumors (i.e., fake news) in an effort to discredit them. Whenever they encounter facts that contradict their beliefs, they assume the facts must have been planted by George Soros in an effort to make us all commie drones, confiscate our guns and steal our precious fluids.
And oh yes, the last link on the page, down at the very bottom right corner, will take you to a site compiled by Prof. Zimdars. called False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and/or Satirical “News” Sources. Which, by the way, Mr. Shapiro, contains only a passing mention of “fake news” in particular. But hey, who cares about details?
Granted, the sinister influence of Prof. Zimdars is also somewhat evident on the Harvard Library site in a little box that lists some tips for vetting sources of (mis)information; these were adapted from Zimdars:
“Consider the source”? “Check the URL”?? “Look for visual clues”??? “Get a second opinion”???? “Put your browser to work”????? Such shocking leftist indoctrination!! And most shocking of all, look at what the Harvard librarians apparently tacked onto the bottom. Really, ask a librarian?!? We all know that libraries are just timeless repositories of leftist propaganda, don’t we?
But what happens if we dare to click on that link and travel to the badlands of the Zimdars site? Well, if we do, we will find (brace yourself) even more tips. And then, finally, at the bottom, that notorious list that apparently started Ben’s snow flaking.
The original version of the roster was compiled by Prof. Zimdars for a class as a suggested starting point for further investigation. It was never intended to be exhaustive or definitive. Subsequently, it went viral and was expanded and revised a time or two. And subsequently, according to Prof. Zimdars, she was harassed by fans of some of the sites she called out. No surprise there.
Shapiro takes exception to the list because it contains so many right-wing sites. As usual for right-wingers who howl because they have been targeted by watch dogs, it never seems to occur to him that maybe such sites just might deserve to be targeted. The list also includes a few non-rightwing sites, but he glosses over that, being more concerned instead with the ones it doesn’t include. He does mention the inclusion of AlterNet, which is pegged as “credible”, and tries to counter that with a recent AlterNet headline: “The T—p Dystopian Nightmare: Nuclear War, Climate Change, and a Clash of Civilizations Are All on the Horizon.” Gotta do a little better than that, Ben. That headline is barely even hyperbolic — if at all.
He’s also staggeringly inept in his defense of his own site, The Daily Wire, which he says is denoted as having “extreme bias” (it’s now mere “bias”, an upgrade it’s hardly merited):
I’ll proudly state that National Review and the Daily Wire are more honest than CNN; both outlets have an editorial point of view reflected in their content, but neither mistakes news for opinion or opinion for news.
We’ll pause a moment while you catch your breath.
It’s hard to say which is more inept — the reference to CNN or the one to National Review. The former is another instance of mindlessly joining the bizarre lockstep self-defeating scapegoating of CNN by wingers, a campaign rather like attempting to show off your athletic prowess by trying to kick yourself in one testicle. And by “proudly” crawling into bed with the National Review he is associating with a reactionary rag that, as we’ve discussed in three previous posts, is anything but honest and reliable. Meanwhile, NR posts his little screed under the heading “Harvard fake news guide proves leftist bias”. Really, Ben? An “honest” and reliable journal cites a single (supposed) instance to “prove” a broad generalization?
To give credit where it’s due, Shapiro also includes some advice which he believes will help combat fake news. Here are the headings, each of which is detailed a little more in the article:
1) Locate the information intersection.
(i.e., where different sources agree)
2) Wait 24 hours to believe supremely controversial claims.
3) Anonymous sources are anonymous sources.
4) Outlets that make corrections are more reliable.
5) Consider the ideology.
6) Read the whole article.
Those are really very good tips. Damn good tips. Astoundingly good tips, considering the source. They’re very similar to recommendations made by many other people (including yours truly) and even suspiciously similar to advice offered by the infamous Prof. Zimdars. (And note that CNN is rather conscientious about the principle of correcting its errors, while Fox, Breitbart, etc. are not. ) But with the exception of number 2, they’re not particularly relevant to fake news.
Weeding out fake news is, for the most part, a much simpler affair: just get your news from journalists (preferably a variety of them) rather than from pundits, hacks and the Internet rumor mill. There are occasional ifs, ands and buts, but this basic and painfully obvious principle will solve about 99 percent of the problem. Hell, even a cesspool like Fox has some real journalists who report real (albeit severely biased) news. It’s the talking headlesses on the spin shows who really take you down a rabbit hole.
So what are Shapiro’s tips good for? Cutting through the spin, bias and distortion. Again, he is conflating ideological subjectivity with outright fabrication. Just as he’s accusing “the left” of doing.
And it surely goes without saying that he’s not one to follow his own advice. And fortunately for his bottom line, neither are his fans. If everyone assiduously pursued his recommendations on this matter, his cult following would vanish quite rapidly.
Follow the Propaganda Professor on Twitter @profofprop
whenever I recommend fact checking sites like FactCheck.org, I immediately get complaints from right-wingers who believe its just common sense, that this site is biased towards the left. However, I have found a great way to throw a monkey wrench into that claim and keep them guessing.
If one goes to Wikipedia, or any reputable biographical site, one can easily find a summation of Walter Annenberg’s life–the wealthy man who founded FactCheck,org with a very generous grant. But many biographical websites are quick to provide the exact same info about his life–which is all the better for their credibility–especially including the fact that he was appointed to diplomatic posts by Eisenhower, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, and that he rubbed elbows with celebrities during the Holidays, at the corner of Bob Hope and Bing Crosby Drives, and in fact, spent many of them with famous and wealthy Republicans. So I simply ask doubters, if the still believe that FactChek.org is a website specifically designed to dispense false liberal dogma, after they read that information? Most of them are struck speechless after checking out the link I provide, and decide to quit making further comments to dispute me.
It’s also helpful to point out that all major fact checkers regularly receive email from disgruntled readers who accuse them of overtly dispensing right, or left winged, biased—
depending on which side they base their partisan beliefs. So it’s not really that, fact checking sites like Politifact.com, FactCheck.org,Snopes, The WAshington post, or Salon, etc. are biased and decide to show bias, its mainly and simply that their bias is in the eye of the beholder.
During the 2012 elections, Republicans dissed fact checkers in general and angrily exclaimed that they did not want to ruin their campaign with fact checkers. However, they are not alone in disputing many of the conclusions reached by various fact checking sites. Other Democrats (as well as myself) occasionally disagree with the Pants on fire, Whoppers, and 4 pinocchios rulings they often conclude with—the difference is that we don’t dispute every last (or nearly every last), decision they make.–because The fact is, that most of those decisions I take exception to, rely way too much strict logic that is sometimes objectionable to me..i.e. Just because Obama was the President when Republican obstructionists tried to prevent Congress form raising the debt ceiling, that does not mean he approved of the whole affair. In fact, he urged Republicans over and over again not to damage our credit rating by refusing to raise the budget in order to pay for what we already owed. But regardless, we received news that our S&P credit rating had dropped and soon after that, Republicans wasted no time jumping on the blame Obamas wagon, juar to hide their own folly?
In my book the mere fact that Obama was commander in chief was not sufficient reason to claim that he shared equally in the blame for that fiasco? If someone pointed a gun at him and shot, would he to blame for not jumping out of the way quickly enough to avoid being injured, or because he did not surrender his wallet immediately?
So Fact Check.orgs ruling often highlighted the fact that it takes two to tango, in order to maintain its strictly logic based conclusions. I guess if Obama had just immediately folded to all of the GOPs demands, that would have rendered him blameless—at least until a lack of funding for yet another debt ceiling fiasco pointed towards his passive role in preventing such a new crisis?–go figure??
However, the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that we may all disagree with fact checkers, but we don’t need to condemn them completely just because once in a while they catch us by surprise.
I thought you might find this blog interesting: Popaganda “Pop culture is soft-power”
[…] cut from the same cloth is Ben Shapiro, whom we’ve also crossed paths with before. A couple of times. Here’s his oh-so-benign […]
[…] Pizzagate and Climategate and massive voter fraud and a “border crisis” and drastically redefining “fake news”, and Fox “News” and on and on and on. Not to mention they have […]
[…] Shapiro, the arrogant and pretentious pseudo-intellectual American right-wing cult figure who has a hard time separating facts from feelings, about his recent book, The Right Side of History — which we […]
[…] He wanted to cast doubt on the gunman’s presumed motives, of course, to suggest that Martin was responsible for his own death. And that’s the second tactic: blaming the victim. Perhaps his ugliest manifestation yet was his response to the vicious murder by terrorists of journalist Jamal Khashoggi after they chopped off his fingers. Let’s repeat that so it’s perfectly clear: terrorists murdered Khashoggi after they chopped his fingers off. Perhaps because he was a Muslim, and/or because he was a genuine journalist as opposed to a demagogue, the right-wing punditocracy immediately began blaming him for his own vicious murder, claiming that he was a radical Islamist who was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. These smears had already been debunked by the time Shapiro decided to run with them, but he compliantly parroted them anyway. Which doesn’t speak well for his professed desire to unmask fake news. (We’ll get to that in a future discussion.) […]