[Hobbsicle] Politics Before Religion

[Hobbsicle]

This is a puzzle I just put on the latest episode of my podcast, but it's the only lateral thinking puzzle so far that hasn't been previously been shared on this forum, so I'm rectifying that. Probably a quick solve.

Recently, a few well-respected institutions included fake news to their publications, presenting it as factual information. It was pointed out by news outlets, and they were criticized, yet the institutions did not remove the information or apologize. Why?

[AlbatrossLover]

Are all the institutions involved in the same field? If so, politics? Religion? Social advocacy? Science?

Were they trying to make a point? Point out a double standard? Make the people who criticized them look like hypocrites?

Were the fake news related to an organization? A person? A specific event? Were they relevantly expecting people to believe what they saw? Act in a certain way based on the false information?

[irishelk]

Country relevant? Could this happen in a different time? Or are specific current events relevant?

Were they performing a test? Quoting someone? Protecting someone in any way (e.g., name changes)? Had they guessed at or estimated something> Was it impossible to avoid printing false information?

[Hobbsicle]

AlbatrossLover

Are all the institutions involved in the same field? Yes If so, politics? Religion? Social advocacy? Science? None of these, though science might be closest

Were they trying to make a point? Not especially Point out a double standard? No Make the people who criticized them look like hypocrites? No

Were the fake news related to an organization? A person? A specific event? No-ish to all Were they relevantly expecting people to believe what they saw? Yes Act in a certain way based on the false information? No

irishelk

Country relevant? No Could this happen in a different time? Hm, possibly, but it makes more sense today Or are specific current events relevant? Yes-ish, not that specific, though

Were they performing a test? No Quoting someone? No-ish Protecting someone in any way (e.g., name changes)? No Had they guessed at or estimated something? No Was it impossible to avoid printing false information? No

An underlying FA in both sets of questions

[Doriana]

Were the fake news printed? televised? published on the internet? Were they in the form of written text? spoken text? photos? graphs? videos?

[AlbatrossLover]

Are the institutions related to technology? Telecommunication? Social media?

Is false information actually involved? Is what they said technically true? True in a specific context?

[irishelk]

Did they intend to put out false information? Did they believe it was false when it was first included? Did they believe it was false when it was pointed out and criticized?

Are their publications meant for general consumption? Are they sending the publications to news outlets? To someone else specific?

[Hobbsicle]

Doriana

Were the fake news printed? Possibly, not sure televised? published on the internet? This as well Were they in the form of written text? This spoken text? photos? graphs? videos?

AlbatrossLover

Are the institutions related to technology? Telecommunication? Social media? Not directly any of these, though they would use all three to varying degrees

Is false information actually involved? Only tangentially! Is what they said technically true? Yes! True in a specific context? I suppose you could say this, though the specifics of what they said wouldn't be perceived as false in a stand-alone statement.

irishelk

Did they intend to put out false information? No Did they believe it was false when it was first included? No Did they believe it was false when it was pointed out and criticized? No

Are their publications meant for general consumption? Yes Are they sending the publications to news outlets? Not sure, probably, but the institutions are large enough to be generally on the radar of news outlets To someone else specific? No

[AlbatrossLover]

Did the people that criticized them make a mistake? Misunderstand something? Lack knowledge necessary to understand the information?

Did they expect the average reader to realize the information is technically true?

[GalFisk]

Are they trying to make a point? Are the news misleading? Are they testing if due diligence is being done?

[irishelk]

Is timing at all relevant? Maybe the information was untrue initially, but became true? Or vice versa? Was the information true, but it was not "news" in the sense that it wasn't new?

Are the institutions talking about fake news itself?

[markobr]

Fake news: False information? Information that is true but misleading? News about fakes? News that are correct, but some related statements (e.g. about sources or the time of publication) are wrong or misleading?

Not science, but somewhat close to science: Humanities? Engineering? Standardisation? Medicine?

Are the institutions governmental? Private non-profits? Profit-oriented?

Differences between ordinary and technical language relevant?

[Hobbsicle]

AlbatrossLover

Did the people that criticized them make a mistake? No Misunderstand something? Not really, more of a debatable issue Lack knowledge necessary to understand the information? No

Did they expect the average reader to realize the information is technically true? Yes

GalFisk

Are they trying to make a point? No Are the news misleading? The information published is not misleading. Are they testing if due diligence is being done? No

irishelk

Is timing at all relevant? No-ish Maybe the information was untrue initially, but became true? Or vice versa? Not these Was the information true, but it was not "news" in the sense that it wasn't new? All of these things are true, and the fact that it wasn't exactly "new" is part of the criticism. But that's not the only thing keeping it from being "news".

Are the institutions talking about fake news itself? YES. In what sense?

markobr

Fake news: False information? Yope. That is what "fake news" is, but that isn't true of the information Information that is true but misleading? What they published is true, but not misleading. News about fakes? No News that are correct, but some related statements (e.g. about sources or the time of publication) are wrong or misleading? No

Not science, but somewhat close to science: Humanities? Yes, this Engineering? Standardisation? Medicine?

Are the institutions governmental? Private non-profits? I believe this, though the government is involved in some of them, I think...? Profit-oriented?

Differences between ordinary and technical language relevant? Not exactly, but this is OTRT

[markobr]

Are the institutions universities/university departments? Museums? Libraries? Archives?

A certain field of humanities relevant? Philology? Literature studies? Media studies? Philosophy? History? Anthropology? Archaeology? Law? Musicology? Ethnology? Dramatics? Performing arts? Religious studies? Theology?

Did they publish something which everybody who isn't stupid could figure out themselves? Something that has been known since long ago (so it's not really news)? Something that is true just because they published it?

[AlbatrossLover]

Were the institutions calling out something else as fake news?

[trebor]

Were they quoting other sources by printing this fake news? If so, was it these initial sources who then complained?

[Hobbsicle]

markobr

Are the institutions universities/university departments? One may be related, but generally no Museums? Libraries? No, but there are similarities Archives? No to rest

A certain field of humanities relevant? Philology? This Literature studies? Media studies? Philosophy? History? Anthropology? Archaeology? Law? Musicology? Ethnology? Dramatics? Performing arts? Religious studies? Theology?

Did they publish something which everybody who isn't stupid could figure out themselves? Essentially, yes, or that was the critique anyway Something that has been known since long ago (so it's not really news)? Something like this Something that is true just because they published it? No

AlbatrossLover

Were the institutions calling out something else as fake news? Yope, you could put it that way, though that would be misleading

trebor

Were they quoting other sources by printing this fake news? Yope, not exactly quoting If so, was it these initial sources who then complained? No

[AlbatrossLover]

Dictionaries relevant? Language regulators?

Is a fictional story relevant? Did they warn against doing something featured in a book/movie etc that most people already know not to do?

[Hobbsicle]

Dictionaries relevant? YES Language regulators?

Is a fictional story relevant? Did they warn against doing something featured in a book/movie etc that most people already know not to do? No to rest

[AlbatrossLover]

Was the publication related to the meaning of a word? The spelling? Words that are used with different meanings than originally intended i.e literally?

[Doriana]

Singular "they" relevant? "Irregardless"?

[Hobbsicle]

AlbatrossLover

Was the publication related to the meaning of a word? Yes, with slight ish The spelling? No Words that are used with different meanings than originally intended i.e literally? No, and somewhat notably so

Doriana

Singular "they" relevant? "Irregardless"? No to both

[AlbatrossLover]

So a word that has had the same meaning for a really long time? One that's used often? Something like "yes"? "No"? A unit of time? Measurement?

[biograd]

WAG: Are the words themselves (the ones you're referring to as "fake news") not real words? inserted with fake definitions only to catch plagiarism of entries from the dictionaries?

If that's not correct, does the "fake news" in fact refer to words newly inserted into dictionaries?

[Doriana]

Is the inclusion of the term “fake news” itself relevant?

[Hobbsicle]

AlbatrossLover

So a word that has had the same meaning for a really long time? Yes, though slight FA One that's used often? Yes, though more so now Something like "yes"? "No"? A unit of time? Measurement? No to all

biograd

WAG: Are the words themselves (the ones you're referring to as "fake news") not real words? inserted with fake definitions only to catch plagiarism of entries from the dictionaries? No to these

If that's not correct, does the "fake news" in fact refer to words newly inserted into dictionaries? Yes, and...

Doriana

Is the inclusion of the term “fake news” itself relevant? YES

***************SPOILER*********************

A few dictionaries (Oxford, Collins, Dictionary.com, more probably) recently added definitions for "fake news" to their dictionaries, given the recent frequent usage of the term. This was reported as a novelty in news outlets, though some criticized the move. One such critic was Merriam Webster: "The reason fake news is unlikely to be entered in our dictionary anytime soon is that it is a self-explanatory compound noun — a combination of two distinct words, both well known, which when used in combination yield an easily understood meaning. Fake news is, quite simply, news (“material reported in a newspaper or news periodical or on a newscast”) that is fake (“false, counterfeit”)."

Thanks for playing, and good job Doriana for the final leap. As for the title, there is one place where politics always comes before religion: a dictionary.