RE: WORD HIJACKING 6.0: Is it a lie? Is the person lying all the time? Do you truly know what a lie is?
'Can you prove the intent? If not, then it wasn't a lie.'
Sorry, you're wrong, here. They might have been lying. They might not have been. Just because you can't prove they were, doesn't mean they necessarily weren't, at all.
Interesting mistake. ;)
Then, the fake news....
Whether what is being reported can be classed as 'fake news' or not is totally independent of what tricks the presenters are also getting up to as they report the news. The presenters are very rarely the news. It's what they're saying that is the news.
If they're telling the truth but a million miles away from the event, their report of the event could still be pretty much legitimate if they stick to the facts. It doesn't matter if they're honest / lying about their whereabouts at all. They're not the news. If they're lying or intentionally setting out to mislead with what they're claiming to be news, then you could argue that it could be fake news if their lies / misinformation are significantly different from what the news should really be (and the presenters knew them to be). Like lying, you don't really have to be able to prove the news to be fake, either (not that you stated that) for it to be fake. It's fake or it's not fake totally regardless of whether someone can prove it to be.
Surely?
Actually I wasn't intentionally wrong. Just something I missed when I was proofreading. I fixed a few others including one where I had willing when it should have said unwilling.
It should say something like "Can you prove the intent? If not, then you cannot prove it was a lie."
Why would anyone ever be intentionally wrong, eh? ;)
Only example I can think of is if they are trolling or baiting you. :)
It was a rhetorical question (but good answer, all the same - I can't think of any other reason).
Yes, in the three examples I provided they were not reporting actual news. They simply were making up something. Much like going to a play or movie and calling that news when it was fabricated.
Sorry. I was confused I guess by the fact that you chose to mention they were being deceitful about their whereabouts instead of referring to the 'news' they were actually sharing with the world. As in your first two examples.
Yeah in all three cases they were also talking about things they were witnessing that were just things they were making up at the time. Were their events occurring in the world at the time? Sure. Just not the events they referred to.
Well that clears everything up then.