Looks like someone at the technical staff streamed their "evening entertainment" video instead of the news by mistake... 🤣

Hahahahaha! Classic! 🤣

"viewers were tuning in for a brand new episode of Anthony Bourdain’s Parts Unknown"

...you just can't make this shit up. 🤣

So how long until Time accidentally put goatse on the cover?

Hahahahaha...

That was no accident, given all the racy sex related programs CNN has been airing lately.

if its not by accident, then what is it for? theyll sure pay a million fine

It didn't happen.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/11/25 … reads/94441324/

Hooray for people trusting fake news!

The only "DVR photo proof" i've seen comes from reactionary eggs so there's obvious doubt there too

Yeah wouldn't be surprised if it's one of these guys again, bolstering the "fake news" buzzword so that Google/Facebook/etc. get even more justified in filtering information for our innocent minds. Gotta hand it to them, that's almost clever 😉

This is like the time when TWC played pron on the wrong on demand Chanel.

VileRancour wrote:

Yeah wouldn't be surprised if it's one of these guys again, bolstering the "fake news" buzzword so that Google/Facebook/etc. get even more justified in filtering information for our innocent minds. Gotta hand it to them, that's almost clever 😉

The ad networks are exercising their right to enforce certain standards of behavior on the part of their clientele. The policy requirements for Ad-words for instance specifies that content may not be deliberately misleading. This is not new.

Yes, that much is known, and isn't new. What *is* new (relatively speaking) is just how much information is basically at the mercy of these ad networks, the ease with which they can be manipulated, and the amazing mobility of the goalposts that define the aforementioned standards of behavior.

I don't think those goalposts have really moved as much as you think. One of the differences between a tabloid and a news publication is and has always been in their response to failure. News publications retract stories where mistakes have been made and fire staff who deliberately cook the evidence. Tabloids do none of those things.

Google and Facebook do wield a great deal of power, and I think there's an important conversation which should happen about that, but I can't fault a policy which will serve to protect the integrity of data reaching the public. One could just as well argue against their blocking of malware sites.

gdjacobs wrote:

I don't think those goalposts have really moved as much as you think. One of the differences between a tabloid and a news publication is and has always been in their response to failure. News publications retract stories where mistakes have been made and fire staff who deliberately cook the evidence. Tabloids do none of those things.

Google and Facebook do wield a great deal of power, and I think there's an important conversation which should happen about that, but I can't fault a policy which will serve to protect the integrity of data reaching the public. One could just as well argue against their blocking of malware sites.

This is very well said, clear and eloquent. I could not agree more.

It seems that Western web portal sites are going down the same road as Chinese portal sites. We used to criticize them for filtering.
The openness of information flow on the internet is a good thing. As always, people just have to think critically about what they read. I don't want to be protected from this. Not everything on the internet is true, but not everything in the newspaper or on the TV is true either. People probably felt a greater sense of order when there were only a few news sources which were highly intermingled and basically all said the same things and were written from the same perspective, but that doesn't mean it was healthy. There's just more competition now, and with it more opportunity to see contradictions.
Some bad actors blatantly make stuff up, but it's a big step backward to have the gatekeepers of the internet make this determination for everyone. Democracy requires unfiltered access to information, and in turn requires that the individual do their own filtering and research and make their own judgment of a source's credibility. Not all will agree on what they believe, and that's as it should be - let them argue it out. In the course of arguing they are exposed to competing ideas and everyone's perspective evolves.

Well, I don't think Google is going to stop indexing fake news sites, "alternative" news sites, tabloids, or conspiracy websites (and I think it would be wrong if they did). They're just not letting them advertise themselves as genuine news organizations via their ad network if they don't demonstrate some responsibility to factual information.

shamino wrote:

Democracy requires unfiltered access to information

It's worked as well as can be expected up until now, it seems.

and in turn requires that the individual do their own filtering and research and make their own judgment of a source's credibility.

It is easy to decide that an old man yelling from his porch is probably less credible than a national newspaper, whose continued existence relies on being able to produce quality content that people will buy (and that advertisers will advertise in). The problem is that on the Internet, the old man yelling from his porch can feasibly design a website that looks just as credible.

Someone mentioned tabloids, and that's a good parallel. Think of the sensationalist 'news' websites the way you would the tabloids or celebrity gossip papers in the old days. What they say may be true but you need to take it with a heavy dose of skepticism.

And I wouldn't dismiss the tabloids as completely worthless. Because they're willing to run stories without verifying them, they're often the first to break important stories. Just remember to be skeptical about their claims.