Opinion: 2016, the year fake news became a thing!


“A wise man told me don’t argue with fools. Cause people from a distance can’t tell who is who.”


Not that it is news that it’s has existed fake-news. Fake stories and dubious tales to change the outcome and change the demeanour of a nation to swing them to a cause, if it is war, to annex a state or change internal policies; this been done through propaganda, done through blasting tunes on the radio and spreading ill-will on the air. This is well-known methods to sway public opinion.

You begin with altering the truth, making something unbelievable believable, because of former pattern and also history of certain actors that is known. Just as the American Government under George W. Bush, with Dick Cheney and others used all kind of tricks and foul play to target the regime under Saddam Hussain in Iraq; this done with the lie of massive loads of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), that we’re stockpiled and also imported from various sources even inside Niger and Chad. The Iraqi culprits couldn’t even find the nations on map if their lives depended on it. Still, the people behind spreading this news has walked proud-cock for decades and not asked for their favour to humanity. It isn’t just Tony Blair and George W. Bush who worked for an illegal war, also the men and woman who forced the news of ill-intent in Iraq; which wasn’t true.

“Duelfer portrays the United States as a lumbering superpower whose top policymakers, particularly in the White House and the Defense Department, lacked any basic understanding of Iraq’s history, motives and leaders. But he says Iraq also routinely misread American intentions and overestimated the capability of U.S. intelligence. He says that according to an Iraqi government account, Hussein once asked his top commanders if Iraq had any hidden weapons he didn’t know about” (…) “Duelfer describes numerous requests from senior Iraqi officials to start a dialogue with the United States to improve relations. “Each time I passed on such entreaties to Washington, there was never an answer,” he said. “If nothing else, they were missed opportunities for Washington to gain more knowledge.” (Lynch, 2009).

This is just proof of old history where the media together with government(s) are misleading the citizens to sway them for a war or conflict. As much as this can be countered with facts, the ones that swallow it with feelings will not change opinions with facts. Therefore with the current American election, certain stories has run and been eaten up, while not being true.

“The left has been hysterically pushing a new meme, “fake news.” While ostensibly neutral in practice it is subliminally weaponized as another lame vector — along with attacks on the electoral college and so forth — to undermine the legitimacy of the election of Donald Trump. Love Trump or hate him, he won” (…) “The real “fake news” scandal, of course, lies in the mass hallucination by the mainstream media that Hillary Clinton had a near lock on the general election. The overconfident reports of this reportedly led the Clinton campaign to make some unforced errors which just might (or might not) have cost her the election” (Benko, 2016).

Though other lies during the campaign we’re lizards inside Hillary Clinton’s body, that they had killed a dozen of people and we’re part of grand conspiracy, which apparently is bit funny in hindsight as the Trump Administration is more establishment than ever before, with more businessmen and close tightknit Wall-Street that Clinton was a hired puppet for. So the concern of these reports, the news that we’re created to cater the Trump supporters should be worrying as these conservative news and pages are spread like wildfire.

The third person effect involves more, however, than simply a psychological tendency to assume that others are more easily influenced than oneself; this hypothesis also suggests that people may take significant actions based on these perceptions. It is these actions that ultimately comprise the ‘effect’ brought about by third person perceptions. For this component of the third person hypothesis evidence is again indirect, but suggestive. Some evidence of third person effects is documented in studies of candidate viability. Bartels (1988), for example, suggests that media coverage emphasizing ‘horse race’ aspects of presidential primaries affects perceptions of various candidates’ chances of winning. The perceived viability of candidates in turn influences the attitudes and behaviors of primary voters in choosing among presidential hopefuls. In this case, as in the third person effect, the influence of mass media is brought about indirectly through impersonal impact on how people think others are thinking. The ultimate effect in this case is a vote choice, but other changes in attitudes or behaviors may also result from third person processes. For example, perceptions of viability also have been found to influence reporters’ allotment of news coverage to various candidates (see Goldenberg and Traugott, 1984)” (Muntz, 1989).

This isn’t just pizza-gate, or Bruno Mars dancing on Mars. This is the rational reality that gets naïve men and woman sucked into these stories. They have been spread on Facebook, Twitter and other places to tell our friends and family of the articles from credible sources. Some stories are click-bait to get more people to read on the newspapers and other sites. These are so common that the articles you read after is looking credible, but apparently your scepticism should be true, because when it looks to real and beautiful the deal is fake. The same is also with the well written and articulated stories, that doesn’t have bound with reality and doesn’t seem to be legit.

That people would question this page, I understand, as I am not in writing in my own name. Still, most of the time, I use sources and reports to clarify my own understanding and what sway my opinion. Still, people should scrutinize me too, as much as I pick up wrong sources myself. There are some out there that want to change public opinion and want to bring some people down and get other to rule, or get silence over the acts of evil that is occurring as we speak.

Coler a fake-news writer:

“At any given time, Coler says, he has between 20 and 25 writers. And it was one of them who wrote the story in the “Denver Guardian” that an FBI agent who leaked Clinton emails was killed. Coler says that over 10 days the site got 1.6 million views. He says stories like this work because they fit into existing right-wing conspiracy theories” (…)”The people wanted to hear this,” he says. “So all it took was to write that story. Everything about it was fictional: the town, the people, the sheriff, the FBI guy. And then … our social media guys kind of go out and do a little dropping it throughout Trump groups and Trump forums and boy it spread like wildfire.” (Sydell, 2016).

It’s fake, but looks grand, right?

When you know that these stories hit a certain well-known perspective, a well-known agenda to be spread and to be fitted into believed atmosphere than you know that the Trump supporters would share it and believe it, even if Coler knew it all was just a lie. The lies that we’re to hurt the Clinton Presidential Campaign; this should worry and concern that major parts of the populations are following conspiracies over reality.

“But the incentives to create and distribute fake news are not only financial, and All-Star Macedonia Crying Eagle Number-One News and Views Very Good is not the only kind of fake-news website undermining the media infrastructure necessary for a functioning democracy. Trump’s nominee for national security adviser, a Jack D. Ripper type named Michael Flynn, has a particular fondness for publishing fake news to his Twitter account, as does Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conaway. Even nominally anti-Trump Republicans like Nebraska senator Ben Sasse have gotten into the fake-news business, entertaining ideas of “paid protesters” on the same day one of the most prolific fabricators of fake news admitted that the most widely shared account of paid protesters was wholly made up” (…) “This is, uhh, extremely weird, at best. Traditional news organizations, to state the obvious, are not built to survive an economy like that. You know who is, though? Politicians. The scary thing about “fake news” isn’t just that it’s financially incentivized by our new platform-gods, it’s that it’s socially and ideologically incentivized by them in ways that can’t be fixed without dismantling their entire operation. And, further, that the people best primed to benefit from “fake news” aren’t Macedonian teenagers hoping to buy guitars but leaders willing to untether themselves from truth in exchange for the powerful organizing capabilities of a passionate online audience” (Read, 2016).

We as citizens should let these fake news being spread on social media, neither on blogs nor on other platforms. The reality is that just like Ponzi-schemes, when it seems too real to be true, it most like is. The same can be said about Fake-News that is to cater one part of the population and to shelf the real ones. The time spent on fake-news should concern the media houses and newspapers as their legitimacy is under question, the main-stream media that has been under attack. It still is, and will be for a while as the people want the spread the fake ones.

The deception, this is the real danger, it is democratic that fake stories spread and that the population are involved in the reason for the existence. As long as facts doesn’t matter and the ignorance is growing of fact-checking is dying, this is a pre-existing state that will not die down, because as long as the clicks and spreading of these fake stories happens. They will continue to write them and spread them, as long as the Republican Establishment uses them and take them as real. The Main-Stream media will discuss it and put it into the spotlight.

We can do what we can and question our use of media houses and of what we find online. We should read with caution and question the sources. We should be critical too it and not take it for granted the articles, the news and that the reports has the time or the effort to look through the feed, the agencies input or even what the editor sees as important.


Media bias:

“However, it must also be acknowledged that the myth surrounding the existence of perceptible media bias is not without some small modicum of truth. Advocates of the existence of said bias commonly cite a number of professional patterns and standards of conduct historically employed by journalists (though are not exclusive to “liberal” journalists) in an effort to manipulate the depiction and depth of information presented each day to the American public. Such techniques discussed included six main types or styles of biases, including; gatekeeping information (i.e. purposefully selecting ideologically reaffirming stories for syndication), employing partisan source selection, omission of (potentially contradictory) facts, manipulating the degree of attention and calculable time devoted to a given issue, and finally, openly displaying narrative, subjective contempt for objective facts” (Quackenbush, 2013).

With this in mind, the third person effect, also the media bias. Together with this we can see why the effects of distrust to the media, as it itself created. Fake News will continue to flourish as long as the public cater to it and are in disbelief of the corporate media as much as mass media trying to control the belief of the public. Something they have lost control with all the platforms, as they are not just following Fox News, CNBC or the other main-stay TV Station and Radio, reading the one newspaper, but following digital media that can come from whatever source. This shows the current state and the state of the media in our time, as the fake news can be easily spread and change the opinions of the third persons.

These all are factors and we should question our own use of media, how we perceive the news and how we question the facts… we cannot stop the propaganda, neither fake news, we just have to clear the way and show the opposite waves and counter with productive arguments that can show the reality to those that eats into the fake, the not real and not believable news. Peace.  


Benko, Ralph – ‘’Clinton Beats Trump’ Is The Real ‘Fake News’ Scandal’ (12.12.2016) link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2016/12/12/clinton-beats-trump-is-the-real-fake-news-scandal/#69090a3529e6


Lynch, Colum – ‘Ex-CIA Investigator’s Book Describes Hunt for Weapons in Iraq, Saddam Hussein’s Final Days’ (31.01.2009) link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/30/AR2009013003430.html

Read, Max – ‘Donald Trump Isn’t Just Benefitting From ‘Fake News’ Websites — He Is One’ (18.11.2016) link: http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/11/trump-doesnt-just-benefit-from-fake-news-sites-he-is-one.html

Sydell, Laura – ‘We Tracked Down A Fake-News Creator In The Suburbs. Here’s What We Learned’ (23.11.2016) link: http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs

Quackenbush, David – ‘Public Perceptions of Media Bias: A Meta-Analysis of American Media Outlets During the 2012 Presidential Election’ (2013).



I det siste har folk angrepet Freia med deres blå-lilla påskeegg pakke som de selger før påska. Samtidig som de har hatt en reklamestunt og kampanje som ikke har godt som planlagt. Jeg skal ikke diskutere den siste. Det jeg skal redegjøre for er mine tanker rundt miljø, etikk og ansvarlighet.

Vi er på vei inn til påsken. Den tiden hvor mange nordmenn går kanonas i Strømstad eller går ute i intet på fjellet med Kvikk Lunsj, kakao og appelsin. Samtidig som mange har bygget ut enorme hytter som er større enn deres hjem midt i fjellet eller ved en bortgjemt vik ved kysten. Som om det er miljøvennlig.

Jeg skal diskutere Påskeegg-mafian. Vanligvis kunne jeg ikke bry meg katten om hva tanker og ideer rosabloggere har, men dette har tatt av. Sikkert fordi over tid har det vært snakk om og ønsket om produkter ikke lengre skal inneholde Palmeolje.

Palmeolje er en smakløs olje som er smøraktig som også kan brukes til såpe, lys også videre. Den kommer fra veldig forskjellige palmetrær.

NHO lanserte allerede i September 2014 at flere norske matvareprodusenter skulle begynne å produsere produkter med «bærekraftig palmeolje» (Regnskog.no). Dette har skjedd samtidig som mange produsenter allerede har sluttet i deler av produktene sine med bruk av akkurat denne oljen.

Det jeg syntes er tragisk med hele er ikke miljømessige diskusjonen rundt palmeolje, men selve boikotten av det hele. Som er litt tragisk og fundamental er selve måten og tankesettet for dette. Hvor lettvint man klandrer Freia og deres bruk av Palmeolje. Spesielt med tanke på at Freia har en grunn til sin drift. Å få en fortjeneste og tjene penger. Kapitalismens grunnverdi er å legge en krone inn i produktet og selge det for to kroner. Så lenge man ønsker dette samfunnet, da vil dette være prisen for produktene som er i butikken. CSR eller Corporate Social Responcibility er som oftest en jippo fra bedriftene, siden de tjener ikke penger på dette. Selv med Fairtrade og merkeordninger som skal sikre at bøndene får rettferdige summer for sitt arbeid.

Å hvis vi skal være ærlige, så er det litt dobbeltmoralsk å forvente noe annet av store produsenter som vil selge mest mulig produkter til oss. Fordi det er ikke på deres agenda å lage slike produkter i grunnen til oss. Da virker det å pålegge dem slikt  litt naivt. Hvorfor går ikke de samme menneskene mot de store bryggeriene og klager å boikotter mot engangsflasker av glass og plast? Som nå selges mer og mer av. Hvorfor er det ikke diskusjon rundt aliminumsboksene? Hvor miljøvennlig er egentlig dette? Hvorfor er det ikke diskusjon rundt emballsje som helhet? I både dagligvaresektoren og annet som vi kjøper inn. Har du sett hvor store og feite boksene for Cornflakes blandingen er og hvor mange lag mann må inn i før man kan fylle en suppebolle og melk med cornflakes? Hvorfor sier ikke folk imot dette? Min teori er at det ikke er sexy eller liten nok.

Det er ironisk at vi som Nordmenn skal pålegge hvordan andre skal drive miljøvennlig i Brasil og andre steder når vi borer etter alle kilder med sort gull som eksisterer under overflaten. Det er litt som Bill Clinton på 90-tallet som snakket fred og slapp bomber hvor det passet enten i Jugoslavia eller i Sudan, og ikke minst fredsprosjekt sammen med Etiopia i Somalia med mindre hell. Det samme er det med oss. Vi pumper opp det sorte-gullet og tjener penger på det. Samtidig pålegger vi omgivelsene til å håndtere galskapen vi putter i atmosfæren. Det er som å snakke fred for deretter å selge kuler. Noe vi også er gode på. Uansett.

De som vil boikotte Freia Påskeegg. Kos dere. Jeg skjønner dere og rister litt på hode. Så håper jeg samtidig for guds skyld at du ikke plukker opp maten på Kiwi med en ny handlepose, men i sekk eller flergangspose. Slik at du ikke ødelegger miljøet med å anskaffe og forurense verden med enda mer plastikk; Som tar evig lang tid å bli jord igjen. Dette er også laget av oljen som vi tjener så flesk med penger på. Fordi om du er så miljøvennlig må du gjøre det i det store og det hele. Ikke bare si det og ikke ta ansvar. Ellers om du er som Bill Clinton på 90-tallet – sier en ting og gjør en annen – elskverdig ikke sant?

Hvis du nå lurer på hvorfor jeg kaller det Påskeegg-Mafian. En mafia er en gruppe og gjeng som er semi-strukturell som driver med ulovlig aktivitet etter indre normer(Wikipedia). Ikke at disse som boikotter Påskeeggene gjør noe ulovlig eller bryter noen etiske grenser. De gjør bare sin rett egentlig. Jeg bare syntes det er en litt forhastig aksjon som egentlig for et stort konsern som Freia ikke vil ha stort å bety. Det er som om man skal få Rema 1000 til å gå konkurs fordi ikke lenger plukker opp Algrens Biler. Vi vet, de vet og alle vi andre vet at det vil ha minimal effekt på Rema, om det i det hele tatt vil ha effekt og de da begynner heller med en kopi(av Algrens Biler) eller så ender vi opp med å kjøpe potetskruer. Verden er enkel sånn.

Så kjære dere boikottere dere ute – Boikott så mye dere vil – Slutt å kjøp Påskeegg fra Freia. Klag, mas, reklamere mot Freia! Samtidig begynner å gjøre flere ting. Snakk ut mot flere bedrifter og boikott disse om dere er seriøse, eller så bryr dere bare når en rosablogger skriver sin mening. Fordi jeg håper inderlig at det må mere til for mafian handle og reagere. Setter pris på at folk ønsker å gjøre noe positivt og engasjerer seg. Bare at det blir meningsløst og lite effektivt når man hoster opp en tåre istedenfor å rense opp en forurenset innsjø. Tårene klarer man å fake og presse ut om man vil, det tar derimot handling og planlegging for å rense en innsjø. Så om denne Påskeegg-Mafian bare er en gimmic eller er en ekte vare får vi se. Fordi vi som Nordmenn bør iallefall tenke oss om før vi klandrer andre for å drive umiljøvennlig aktivitet siden vi er skyldige og det bør ikke være en sak vi trenger å skjule.

Å håper at du for all del koser deg med kvikklunsj og appelsinen på fjellet. At du sitter i din store oppvarmede hytte og veibelagte strekning ut til intet. Hvor du kan nyte stillheten og atmosfæren. Se den hvite snøen. Kjenne vinden i lungene og tenke dette er verdt det. Fordi det er det. Men, om du da når du vet at noen har presset enorme midler for å lage veien ut i skogen, lagt rørene inn til hytta og satt opp stolper med strøm. Som pumpes fra langtvekkistan til din hytte så du kan på kvelden ha isbiter med brusen. Noe som igjen på er engangsflaske som ikke vil brytes ned på aldri den tid. Så vet du at om du boikotter Freia Påskeegg, har alle de andre prosjektet vært like miljøskadelig og forsetter å være det. Å hvis du lurer på det: Så kan du snakke fint og boikotte det fordi det er Palmeolje, men hva med alt det andre? Hvorfor tenkte du aldri på hva alt det andre du gjorde?

Det jeg vil si at om du stirrer på meg som om jeg drepte noen på Rema 1000 eller Kiwi, å da kjøper Påskeegg – tenk på alt du selv plukker opp i handlekurven eller i handlevogna. Ikke som om jeg kjøpte en atombombe eller annriker uran i hagen. Du selv plukket om flere av disse i fjor og da var det ingen problem. Så ikke se på meg som en himla synder. Jeg vet hva jeg gjør. Det vet du også. Likevel, trenger du ikke å se på meg den verste skadedyret på denne planeten. For alle andre ting jeg gjør kan være gode for alt du vet. Å alt annet du gjør kan gjøre kan være verre for miljøet. Etisk er det mange dilemmaer av når det kommer til handling og vurderinger i hverdagen. Miljøvennlighet er en av mange kriterier. Så dersom du har problem med om jeg kjøper dette. For å gå litt Bibelelsk og da siterer Matteus 7-3: «Hvorfor ser du flisen i din brors øye, men bjelken i ditt eget øye legger du ikke merke til?» Slik tenker jeg når du dømmer meg for å plukke opp en pakke Freia Påskeegg. Peace.


Regnskogen.no – http://www.regnskog.no/no/nyheter/nyhetsarkiv/regnskogfondet/nho-vil-redusere-bruken-av-palmeolje (24.09.2014)


Wikipedia – http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia

%d bloggers like this: