11–20 of 135 posts
Reminder: this the same news paper that, on election day, predicted a 98.2% chance of Hillary Clinton winning the election.
Vote wise they where spot on.
Reminder: this the same news paper that, on election day, predicted a 98.2% chance of Hillary Clinton winning the election.
There might be plenty of reasons to believe their analysis was flawed, but by itself the fact the Trump won doesn’t actually imply that.
Interesting to read that fake news is just part of our culture. It seems like a real problem now is the hyper-awereness that the internet has brought us all.
You hire Judith Miller to write about WMDs. Then get 'quality' news to publish it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller The cost of the NYT's 'disinformation' about Iraq was a war that cost hundreds of billions and thousands of lives.
What happened with Iraq was not just fake news, it was fake governing, it was another order of magnitude. Miller and the NYT were just some of the many useful idiots.
You hire Judith Miller to write about WMDs. Then get 'quality' news to publish it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller The cost of the NYT's 'disinformation' about Iraq was a war that cost hundreds of billions and thousands of lives.
Reminder: this the same news paper that, on election day, predicted a 98.2% chance of Hillary Clinton winning the election.
One of the things that stands out in false stories is that because they are false they stay "on message" in their falseness. This contrasts with stories that are more truthful which tend to include questions and unknowns that might later contradict or modify the story.
So for an example, a false story about a series of events leading up to an outcome, there are no events mentioned that suggest randomness or any discussion of alternate ways the outcome could have come about. Where as truthful stories have either tests that were done for counter factual narratives or suggestions for other areas that were not covered as completely.
Basically a common theme in truthful stories was they still included "inconvenient" facts which might or might not be significant and the false stories contain no such facts or even hints.
If I still had an ontologist I could talk to I'd try to figure out if we score stories using an ontological structure score (where perfect scoring is most likely false :-).
You hire Judith Miller to write about WMDs. Then get 'quality' news to publish it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller The cost of the NYT's 'disinformation' about Iraq was a war that cost hundreds of billions and thousands of lives.
It's quite unfair to compare misinformation campaigns orchestrated by the whole US government and it's intelligence agencies, as was the case with Iraq's WMDs, to online propaganda organized by private individuals to the benefit of various political candidates or their own online circulation. What happened with Iraq was not just fake news, it was fake governing, it was another order of magnitude. Miller and the NYT w…
That said, singling out NYT as the OP did is sort of hilarious, all the media outlets ran the same terrible stories and often avoided booking guests that would speak against the war.
You hire Judith Miller to write about WMDs. Then get 'quality' news to publish it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller The cost of the NYT's 'disinformation' about Iraq was a war that cost hundreds of billions and thousands of lives.
Really, it was all the New York Times & the US government had nothing to do with it? Go away, propaganda troll.
Check out Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent".