A whimsical tale of news fakery in the US media for over a century. An excellent read, discussing the history of the media creating sensational stories to boost sales over the years - that continues today - causing fear that the lines in the media between fact and fake are blurring.

This really isn't a news item as much as it is a commentary on the state of the print media. It does have quite a few historical illustrations and their sources which caused me to rate it highly because of its relevance to our current situation. People should read more on subjects as this to promote critical thinking and participation in government and media.

This is an excellent overview of "fake news" progressing from hoax to propaganda and satire. If I can fault it, it would be for its failure to cover one particular source of fake news that is common today: "commentators" in the Limbaugh vein who say they are entertainers, not journalists. This cover allows them to spread stories that are misleading or false with impunity.

I'd have to amend the subhead to "Part of the truth about fake news." Yes, the government and special-interest groups plant stories, and consumers may never know they're not "real." And the kind of obvious fake news of supermarket tabloids has a long and storied history. But there's a more insidious fake Love never mentions--but I've seen firsthand. That is the reporter who shows up with a story to cover--arranged before he or she did any coverage. Just this morning I saw a blog post that repeated the oft-told media story that Dean volunteers in Iowa in 2004 had were "green-haired weirdos." You can't imagine how many times I read and heard that. But I was there. I was one of those volunteers. And it simply wasn't true. Not even ... More »

KUDOs! This story is an excellent collage of (historical and current) media manipulation showing that we have NOT come a long way baby! It would not be too much of a stretch to assert that the term “journalistic ethics” (in news reporting) has been reduced to near-oxymoron status. Phrases used by Professor Love: “the new digital toolbox”, and “sleeker weapons and greater power to turn the authority of the press to their own ends” are KEYS. Tools do not provide information, they do work! Just as “polls” have morphed, from legitimate statistical analysis tools, to opinion and behavior modification and manipulation tools, so goes the news. In the words of Stephen Colbert, Professor Love has “Nailed It!” I would only ... More »

It's a good account of the history of yellow journalism and of hoaxing, but The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are neither of those: they are satire; they represent a clear point of view; and in essence there is nothing "fake" about them in the sense intended by the author. In fact, Jon Stewart remarks from time to time that the facts are funnier than anything he can invent. Example: last week he reported on the Administration's failed attempt to find a "war czar" and the subsequent decision to rename the position "execution manager." As the laughter rolled, Stewart said: "These people are making me obsolete!"

This is s good commentary and historical account of newspaper hoaxes. It's not a great account of government and journalistic subterfuge. The premise is unclear. Mr. Love isn't sure if he means to write about the distinction between comedic use of fakery versus the serious abuse of power or if he is going to write about the history of journaistic gullibility? He does neither. There's too much about the popular Stewart and Colbert without connecting their current brand of political satire to historical political satire. Niether does Love discuss how lying is not satire, how what's funny in one context turns serious in another. In short, the ending does not arise from the beginning or fromt he body.

A good reminder of things long known but easily forgotten...