The media are trying to get people to trust the news they cover and have failed.
Now, it’s up to us.
A new report from The Post’s Michael Kranish and Paul Kane looks at the ways that media are failing.
The report begins with a look at the history of the fake news epidemic.
It also looks at how people are reacting to it, and what’s being done to fix it.
In the midst of all the outrage and conspiracy theories over the election, the Post reports, a number of experts are urging us to look back at the early years of this media phenomenon.
“The problem is that it’s a real-life version of the classic media model,” says Paul Kane, a media professor at American University and a former editor at The New York Times.
“It’s a very familiar, familiar system where people tell you what they want to hear, and then they get their news through them.”
The Post’s report includes examples from a number, including a study of a New Jersey-based network that helped generate the Trump-related conspiracy theories of 2016 and a study by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley.
(A spokesperson for the university did not respond to a request for comment on the report.)
“If you’re an American journalist, you are going to have a story,” Kane says.
“You’re going to be told what to say.
You’re going, in effect, to be the producer of the story.”
In that environment, you can see the way some media outlets have treated the fake-news controversy.
In a February 2016 story, The Washington Post, citing unnamed sources, reported that “the Trump campaign, the White House and the news media” were “in bed together” on the issue of fake news.
The paper reported that one of the reporters for the story was the same person who was quoted in the CNN story.
The story was later retracted.
The Post reported that the network that produced the story had paid CNN $3.2 million.
Another example of how news organizations have used a familiar model to get their stories across comes from a study from Columbia University’s Center for Journalism Ethics, which found that “media coverage of the 2016 presidential election was heavily skewed toward favoring Clinton.”
A few months later, a piece in The New Yorker reported that CNN had paid for the research into a Trump dossier compiled by a former British spy.
CNN denied the report, saying the story “does not reflect our news coverage at all.”
“It’s the equivalent of the mainstream media telling the story of the Civil War and saying that all the people who fought in the Civil Wars were slaves,” says Kyle Kondik, a professor at the Media Studies Program at Syracuse University and the author of the new report.
Kondik points out that there’s been no proof of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin, but he says the media’s use of a familiar-model approach is indicative of a broader problem.
“I think it’s just a case of the media making it up as they go along,” he says.
Some of the other findings in the study, such as that fake news stories were most common on social media, can be traced back to the early days of the election.
But in the wake of the first presidential debate, fake news was largely absent.
As the media began to move beyond that first debate and the Clinton-Trump debate, they started to make up stories about the campaign and their rivals.
And by the time the second presidential debate rolled around, it was largely a media phenomenon, not an actual issue.
When Trump was elected, fake-story stories about him were most often on the news networks’ social-media feeds.
In February, for example, the New York Post, which is owned by NBCUniversal, ran an article headlined “Trump’s campaign hits a new low” that said that “Trump is in his third straight month of a campaign slump.
His campaign is on the verge of a humiliating defeat.”
By the time of the third presidential debate on September 26, the news coverage of Trump and Clinton was almost entirely fake. “
That was a day after the election ended and a week before he was sworn in as president.
By the time of the third presidential debate on September 26, the news coverage of Trump and Clinton was almost entirely fake.
Some reporters say they are concerned about the way media outlets are trying — or failing — to report on the epidemic.””
If you had a story that was not true,” Kondick says, “it’s very hard to find a way to present it.”
Some reporters say they are concerned about the way media outlets are trying — or failing — to report on the epidemic.
“The fact that we’re hearing these stories is a good thing,” says Laura Vozzella, a journalism professor at Washington University in St. Louis.
“But they should be reported in a way that is not just, ‘Here’s some of the bad stuff