Unethical Website of the Month: Hoax Site “The News Nerd”

Sorry, Aretha. You are just an innocent pawn in a slimy website's quest for links.

Sorry, Aretha. You are just an innocent pawn in a slimy website’s quest for links.

Updates follow the original post…

Bonus ethics points are due Mediaite writer Luke O’Neill, who placed the word ‘satire’ in scare quotes while describing the website called “The News Nerd,” which he grouped with, in his words, “The National Report (behind this recent viral hoax about Bill Murray stopping a bank robbery), The Daily Currant, and the rest of the plague of woefully unfunny bottom-feeders who’ve clogged up our newsfeeds of late.” The site in question has been sued by pop icon Aretha Franklin, who argues that its unfunny fake story about her  getting into a fistfight with fellow diva Patti LaBelle is defamatory.  Aretha is going to lose, of course,* and worse, she is bringing more attention, traffic and income to the despicable website, which I will not link to and assist its sordid little game.

Getting links and traffic is the whole point of such sites: write and publish a plausible but strange made-up news story that enough news aggregation sites and bloggers believe, hope the story goes viral, and reap the monetary rewards of notoriety and ethical misconduct. “The News Nerd” had one of its “successes” recently by falsely reporting that George Zimmerman was peddling a new painting, this one of Trayvon Martin. It is a vile, if not especially new, creature on the web, one that makes the internet even less reliable and trustworthy than it was. Such sites’ victims are the trusting, hurried and inattentive. They masquerade as satire sites, but are intentionally poor ones. Their stories are not clever or sufficiently well-made to signal their allegedly humorous nature, and the disclaimers are hidden, perhaps a click away, or at the bottom of a screen, where the site-owners know many readers will never look.

Oh, there might be clues scattered around: on The News Nerd home page, some headlines are sufficiently ridiculous (“Leonardo DiCaprio Cast as MLK in New Film, Will Wear Blackface”) if not particularly amusing. That’s part of the game too: to the extent that there is any pleasure to be derived from the site, it is from the mockery aimed at those who fall for one of the hoax stories by those who either did not, or who will maintain they wouldn’t have even though they were alerted to the hoax when they first learned of the story.

You know how I feel about web hoaxes (if not, you can catch up here, here and here). Undercover “satire” sites like The News Nerd are prime offenders, and the remedy for must be cultural, not legal.  In other words, we have to just hate them to pieces, and hope they slink away. There is no fail-safe way to distinguish between true satire, in which the objective of a faux news story is to amuse, and a hoax, in which the real objective is to trick as many people as possible into accepting the story as fact, so others can say, “What a gullible idiot you are!” Professional, competent, well-labeled satire such as what appears in The Onion still fools some people, and even the most fantastic nonsense, such as an Esquire piece lampooning real life “birthers” ( from the defamation court decision: “…reported upon a 2010 incident in which Farah and Corsi, visiting an aquarium during a World Net Daily team-building exercise, rushed the stage during a children’s show and began sexually abusing a performing walrus to the gasps and horrified screams of onlookers. “TAKE THAT KENYAN FASCIST,” Farah and Corsi reputedly screamed, although the aquarium’s presenter had specified that the walrus was indigenous to the Pacific. Esquire writer Mark Warren speculated that the outburst was spurred by the revelation that the walrus was named “Barry”…)might, like the Franklin-LaBelle story, spark a lawsuit, particularly when the targets are not too bright.

No law that would punish sites like The News Nerd could avoid threatening and chilling genuine wit and satire, so we are stuck with the “bottom feeders” as part of the price of a free speech. That means the burden is on legitimate journalists to check their sources carefully, and not rely on second or third-hand relays of stories that seem juicy and odd. If they trace back to an obscure website, it then has to be scoured for small print, hidden pages and other subtle disclaimers that announce, but quietly, that the plausible and provocative tales on the site involving real people or current events are not true. The people who wrote the disclaimer hope it isn’t found, you see, because that’s the fun: tricking those who are trying to inform the public into spreading misinformation and starting rumors that will be just about impossible to kill.  They are the web equivalents of the fool who left the fake bomb at the Boston Marathon finish line last week. His unfunny hoax just wasn’t protected by the Constitution.

[Update (Nov. 14, 2014): The dishonest  excuse used by News Nerd defenders that the site discloses its “satirical” nature—the fake stories are neither satirical, witty nor amusing—is  decisively disproven by the latest scummy post, which amasses over 800 indignant comments that one has to scroll past before seeing the small “disclaimer.”]

[Update (Aug. 1, 2014): The News Nerd web polluters are doubtlessly puffing up their pigeon breasts with pride because yet another of their fake, unfunny “satires” fooled journalists and bloggers. This one was about a Facebook “fire challenge” that caused teens to set themselves on fire. Hilarious!]

* As a public figure, she’ll have to show that there was real malice (wherein she’ll face the “Can’t you take a little joke?” defense), that she suffered tangible and measurable harm, and that the story was widely and reasonably believed despite the website’s disclaimer and some of the other, less likely headlines surrounding it.


Pointer: Fred

Sources: Rolling Stone, Mediaite

Graphic: Rolling Stone


15 thoughts on “Unethical Website of the Month: Hoax Site “The News Nerd”

  1. “Undercover “satire” sites like The News Nerd are prime offenders, and the remedy for must be cultural, not legal. In other words, we have to just hate them to pieces, and hope they slink away.”

    Agreed. And let us hope that when they begin to slink, they take linkbait sites like Upworthy with them.

    Personally, I view Upworthy and its ilk as far more dangerous; they use semi-legitimate items but use them to promote a very specific political agenda. It is propaganda – highly skilled, magnificently executed from a technical point of view – but propaganda nonetheless.

  2. “Aretha is going to lose, of course,* and worse, she is bringing more attention, traffic and income to the despicable website, which I will not link to and assist its sordid little game” Yet the name of the web page shows up with Capital Initial and with “Quotations” 9 times on this page… Really!

    • Point? I didn’t link to it, and I can’t write about it without mentioning what I’m writing about. Really sick of gratuitous “gotchas” today—why don’t you offer something constructive? I know that takes actual thought, but still..

  3. I think it is wonderful that satire sites are doing this. Comedy is a wonderful art and when done properly it can subtly show the folly of a culture. One such folly in our current culture is the share-first-verify-second emerging norm in trusted news sources. My, how far journalism has fallen as a ‘profession’. No professional in their right mind would broadcast a newsworthy item without first validating it first.

    • All true, except that the News Nerd’s stories usually aren’t funny or obvious satire. This one certainly wasn’t. Just because these fools think it’s “funny” to get false stories picked up as true, that isn’t satire. That’s called rumor-mongering, and its wrong.

  4. “The stories posted on TheNewsNerd are for entertainment purposes only. The stories may mimic articles found in the headlines, but rest assured they are purely satirical.”
    Do you know where on the website it says that?
    At the bottom of every single page.
    They are lying to no one and they are attempting to do no harm.
    What people do after reading these articles are purely up to them, it is their ignorance and inability to do research on a topic or website that causes them to do stupid things, it is not the website’s fault in the least.
    It isn’t unethical, they aren’t lying to anyone and I happen to think that they’re satire is very funny sometimes, especially since it is very obvious, ridiculous and fictional.
    It’s really sad that you’re defending the actions of the ignorant and once again, aiding in letting the lowest common denominator ruin it for everyone.
    Nothing unethical is being done here, you’re just hate-mongering because you’re offended by their humor.

    • 1. The ethical place for such a disclaimer is at the TOP of every page, because headlines are misleading, many readers don’t scroll to the bottom of every page, and there should be no reason for a reader to explore a whole page to ensure he isn’t being lied to. A prominent box that appears immediately would also be fair. The bottom of the page device is intention to maximize the number of readers deceived. The News Nerd has its disclaimer on the bottom precisely because it will be missed. They know it, I know it, and you know it.

      2. The “humor” of sites like News Nerd consists entirely of their amusement when a serious journalist, blogger or others is tricked into taking their misinformation as fact. That has nothing to do with satire, parody or whimsy. Or humor, unless you think rumor-mongering is funny. It isn’t. It’s harmful.

      3. It is not “very obvious.” If it was very obvious, nobody would ever be fooled, and there would be no point to the blog, since its posts are juvenile, unclever and pedestrian.

      4. Why would I be offended by their “humor”? I can write better satire than that crap after being hit on the head by a shovel.

      5. What I hate are web hoaxes, all of them, of any kind, and the vandals who perpetrate them.

      6. If you scroll all the way down to the bottom of this page, you’ll discover that I didn’t write this post at all, but my dog did.

    • I’m not sure YOU know the difference. Deceit must be literally true, but misleading. Satire must be obviously false, but close enough to true to make a point. They are on opposite poles. Nobody gets them mixed up.

  5. So now you’re the arbiter of comedy? You tell us what’s funny and what isn’t? And you’re spreading hate, in your own words, “we have to just hate them to pieces”. In some countries that’s frowned upon, in some it’s illegal.

    ” That means the burden is on legitimate journalists to check their sources carefully… ” which it should be, what’s your point?

    Oh. I didn’t realise this article is a hoax. I feel so stoopid.

    • That’s good. Self-awareness is good. Here are your hints:

      1. The post isn’t about humor, it’s about spreading lies and rumors, irresponsibly. Now, if the writers actually knew how to write satire, nobody would think their stories were true. But that’s not the joke the News Nerd creeps are after. They think it’s funny to fool people and made the web even less trustworthy than it is.
      2. In other words, the site is run by assholes. No need to mince words.
      3. So hating something that deserves hate is a crime now? Yup—stoopid.
      4. The fact that a news organization should not be fooled by lies doesn’t excuse the liar, you ethically-retarded dolt. Your non-logic would excuse all scams and blame their victims.

      Get off my ethics blog—you pollute it by your corruption as well as your stoopidity.

Leave a Reply to Jack Marshall Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.