In case anyone has just skipped the article to post here without reading, you can play the game here: https://getbadnews.com/#play
It helps to play it to understand what they are trying to accomplish.
‘Pre-bunk’ game reduces susceptibility to disinformation
141–150 of 229 posts
Re: ‘Pre-bunk’ game reduces susceptibility to disinformation
#142The post about how we live in a low trust society (or at least more so due to the internet) is really ringing true.
Re: ‘Pre-bunk’ game reduces susceptibility to disinformation
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
Second best. The best is selective reporting. Even if every story is reported 100% accurately and objectively, by choosing which stories are promoted, and which buried, you can set any agenda you want. Edit: See https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/05/Causes-of-death-i... for an example.
This to me is the most important thing, and has been for decades. When people complain about liberal bias in the news, they’re looking at the small picture - how a particular story was written. They don’t see that what stories are told in the first place get decided by people with a lot of power and money. Instead of focusing on “How should we handle immigration in the US?”, the first question is, “Why are we talking…
The best comment that I heard about media bias was from a conversation I had with a major news anchor nearly 20 years ago. Off the record she says, "We are biased both ways. Most reporters are liberal, and most owners of the media are right-wing. So most stories slant left, but on the big ones we're forced to slant right.*
This was before Fox News became so powerful, and media became more explicitly ideologically divided. I sometimes wonder how much it has changed since.
But given how any left-wining news outlets Rupert Murdoch owns, probably there remains a lot of truth to the observation.
Re: ‘Pre-bunk’ game reduces susceptibility to disinformation
#144The "best" fake news these days is the stuff that doesn't register even to people are read-in on the usual anti-patterns. Subtle framing, selective quotation, anonymous sources, "repeat the lie" techniques, and so on, are the ones that I see happening today that are hard to immunize yourself from. Ironically, the people who fall for these are more likely to self-identify as being aware and clued in on how to avoid fa…
Second best. The best is selective reporting. Even if every story is reported 100% accurately and objectively, by choosing which stories are promoted, and which buried, you can set any agenda you want. Edit: See https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/05/Causes-of-death-i... for an example.
Your source is interesting, but devoid in those stats are human values, which are much harder to measure and add a weighting to each of those bins that may shift the histogram. I don't even think the framing shown here is without some level of bias, for example, they put all types of cancer into one bucket, they treat road fatalities the same as falls and other accidents. It's very hard if not impossible to color the results somewhat, and it's a struggle we have to always deal with and be mindful of.
Re: ‘Pre-bunk’ game reduces susceptibility to disinformation
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is 100% false. It is an "appeal to the middle" fallacy based on two assumptions: 1. that all news sources are equally biased; 2. that aggregating those biases produces an unbiased result. Neither of these assumptions are credible.
1. I didn't say all news sources are "equally biased". Saying all news sources are biased is not the same as saying equally biased. Some are obvious more biased and more propagandistic than others. But without a doubt, every news source has biases. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to look into the history of every news company. Who created them, funded them and who is running them. But I suspect you already know thi…
>I didn't say all news sources are "equally biased".
>I didn't say the "aggregates" produce an unbiased result.
This is correct. I didn't quote you. I'm saying that in order for your conclusion to hold, the above assumptions must be true, which they're not. Whether or not you stated the assumptions is irrelevant.
>Seeing different opinions exposes to you the biases of every news source. If you just watch foxnews or cnn all day, you won't be able to pick up on the bias. But if you watch both, the biases of both become blatantly obvious.
There is zero reason to believe that watching one source will accurately expose the bias in another source, rather than simply contradict it. What I mean is that watching multiple news sources will not necessarily help you distinguish fact from bias.
To give an example, if news A presents a factual statement, and news B presents a lie that contradicts A, you are no better off by watching both news sources.
My statement has exactly nothing to do with "mainstream media." I'm just addressing the fallacy stated above.
Re: ‘Pre-bunk’ game reduces susceptibility to disinformation
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's... pretty incredible that this comment subtly shifts the blame for fake news from networks of coordinated, decentralized, anti-mainstream actors to the mainstream. It's almost like this comment itself is about "enforcing a certain narrative." Independent "journalists" are the ones causing a lot of the crisis of truth currently underway. Indie YouTube channels garner credibility by pushing an "alternative" viewpo…
The only reason people look to those independent journalists is because they notice the manipulation in the mainstream media. Some people are personally involved in a news event, and they read/watch about it and notice that the report is completely different from what happened, cause and effect are reversed, and the journalist is obviously pushing a narrative that was pre-decided before doing any research. Other peop…
I don't have time to reply to this in-depth, but I think that your comment actually elucidated the biggest issue, which is that this demonization and distrust of the mainstream media has conflated commercialized TV news like CNN (which, I'll freely admit, has embraced terrible framing) with actual news outlets (WashPo, Atlantic, NYTimes, etc). There is a difference between what CNN does and what WashPo does.
Also, having worked in a newsroom myself, I can attest to the fact that the firewall between sales/business and the journalists is real and strong. Not perfect, but it does a hell of a job, and is much, much better than the wild west of financing currently in the indie reporting space.
Re: ‘Pre-bunk’ game reduces susceptibility to disinformation
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
A "center" dem from today is 100% a 1980's republican. Their platforms are basically indistinguishable.
1980's Republicans supported sanctuary cities, gay marriage, free college, and socialized health care? No, they didn't. Data shows that the American left shifted far leftward over the last 30 years, with the left edge going the furthest. The Republicans shifted leftward only a small amount. Here's Tim Pool covering the data: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6grXCooL3-M Listen to Bill Clinton in the 90's basically layi…
Sanctuary cities didnt need to be a thing because Republicans didnt care until the 90s. Buchanan wasnt the norm, he was out there. College was practically free then. And ever hear of Nixoncare?
The left today is a caricature of the left in the 60s and early 70s.
Re: ‘Pre-bunk’ game reduces susceptibility to disinformation
#148It's a shame that now when I see Cambridge as a news source I think of their shabby treatment of Jordan Peterson and Noah Carl and discount it somewhat before reading it ... because there are still many fine scholars there.
Re: ‘Pre-bunk’ game reduces susceptibility to disinformation
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump lost the popular vote. National polls captured that perfectly. The polling failure came in the rust belt where the polling models were not tuned to turnout correctly. Turnoit model is the secret sauce of political polling and the most likely source of failure. I was betting on the election and this proved an expensive failure for me. However, your notion of deliberately skewed polls by 'oversampling' Democratic…
I see you're trying to gaslight, but it's not working. Most per-state polls from the swing states said he was going to lose, as well (which was strange for a candidate who was routinely drawing 50K person crowds in those same states). NYT has a really nice visualization: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/polls.... As to oversampling, see the attachment for this email: https://wikileaks.org/podesta…
You don't understand what oversampling means in the context of that email.
They were oversampling to get larger than necessary sub groups so that they could get statistically meaningful results of those subsamples.
As for your first comment swing state polling was more mixed. The RCP polling average gave Trump a lead in Florida. Which he won. It gave him a lead in Ohio which he won, it gave him a lead in Nevada, which he lost.
The polling failure was in the rust belt. Where similar demographics met similar flawed turnout model and result in identical polling failure across the States.
But the irony was the polling failure was over estimating Clinton support not under estimating Trump. Trump got less votes than Romney in Wisconsin yet still won because the Democrats vote collapsed spectacularly.
Re: ‘Pre-bunk’ game reduces susceptibility to disinformation
#150Lol, another game that can help people.
They will 'play' it why?
I can name the amount of games people will play that are helpful or educational to a topic on my hand (ie The old version of WITWICS and ....... I've actually seen another, but it was in a forced setting)
I also doubt the study, but it's a moot point, it's another lets create a "game" to stop "fake news" lingo for more funding from suckers rort.