Battling Lies: The Invasion of Fake News

As convincing as the word of some random person on the internet can be, I do not believe that the flowers in question have birth defects caused by nuclear radiation. For starters, "not much more to say, this is what happens when flowers get nuclear birth defects" isn't the most convincing argument. They're acting as though it must be true simply because they say it is. Also, using a picture with a perfectly normal flower in the corner doesn't help your case. It almost looks as if two of the flowers in the image were simply bent to look abnormal. For these reasons, I do not believe that the flowers in question have nuclear birth defects caused by excessive exposure to radiation.

In less than a minute, I found a 2015 article posted by National Geographic that confirmed my suspicions. While it is possible for radiation to cause similar defects in flowers, scientists believe it is highly unlikely in this case. One reason for their doubt comes from the location of said daisies. The photo was taken roughly 173 kilometres (108 miles) southwest of the aforementioned site of the nuclear disaster, having radiation levels that are only slightly above normal, and is considered safe for medium to long term habitation. Biologists also doubt the authenticity of the post because of the frequent appearance of the defects across many different areas.
_________________________________________________________________

Surprisingly enough, I hadn't heard of "yellow journalism" until we started this assignment. From what I've read, it sounds like yellow journalism was the birthplace of clickbait and war between media. It's not the most surprising thing I've heard; it's kind of like Fox and CNN's relationship, only much more extreme. While I do hope that the media won't bring about another war, I wouldn't rule out the possibility. 

I have met far too many people who believe everything they read. I may not be an avid reader of satire, but even I can tell the difference between real, hard hitting news and it's less real counterpart. Can it entertaining? Very, as seen here. Satirical news purely aims to make the reader laugh, and typically should be taken with a grain of salt.

As seen in the American election, outbursts of fake news can and will have consequences. People create and spread fake news every day. Whether it be a seven year old Facebook post about the weather, or info about Obama's birth certificate, fake news is used to make a profit and/or misinform the public in hopes of changing their opinions. 

Unlike the 8000 students surveyed, I hope that I'd be able to identify fake news, or differentiate a story from an opinion piece. While I am guilty of getting some of my news from social media (mainly Twitter), I won't trust news from an outlet I haven't heard of, and will fact check anything I'm skeptical about.

It is fairly easy to spot fake news. If it sounds like it should be making headlines, but isn't being covered by anyone else, then it's probably a fake. If it is written so poorly that it's difficult to understand, it's probably fake. While I wouldn't necessarily call opinion pieces 'fake', I wouldn't call them authentic either. There's millions of examples of fake news out there, and it's fairly easy to identify most of them. 

I actively follow/use many fact checkers, PolitiFact in particular. Given the rise of 'fake news' and the (expected) lack of honesty from many politicians, it's nice having a trusted method of discerning truth from fiction. I'd be lying if I said that fake news wasn't a problem, and while we cannot control much of it's production, we can help prevent the spread of it.