“We’ll Know Our Disinformation Program Is Complete When Everything the American Public Believes Is False.”
—- Former CIA Director William Casey
Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper (1807)
261–270 of 359 posts
Re: Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper (1807)
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
This reads to me like saying "the best way to determine if god exists is to read the hebrew bible, the koran, and the book of mormon and take the average". It starts with the assumption left, right, and centrist sources all have biases, but those biases cancel out. That the "middle" of those things is meaningfully better. I see no evidence that that's the case. All popular news sources these days seem to be biased to…
The thing with those books is, they are 100% based on faith. There are no underlying facts that they're based on. They're independently constructed origin myths and allegorical morality tales. With an article in the NYT, it's a narrative representation of objective facts as filtered through the lens of a reporter. If you think it's B.S. check Reuters, check WaPo, check NPR, hell check Fox reporting on the same core s…
I don't accept your premise that books are not factual and news media is more/entirely factual. Do you have any evidence on that?
The evidence I've got generally sways towards well-regarded non-fiction book authors generally having more expertise in the area they write about than well-regarded journalists. This also makes intuitive sense - journalists often write about many subjects and act as second-hand sources, while researchers and authors are often first-hand sources and write about fewer subjects.
My point is not that most news organizations don't publish similar articles. My point is that they do, but them doing so is not evidence that what they post is useful factual information for staying informed.
Just because you consulted multiple sources doesn't mean you get a true picture. 3 bibles all will tell you there is 1 god because those three sources share the same underlying bias.
A dozen news sources will tell you the same thing, but that could also mean that they share the same underlying biases (the bias towards a quick and profitable news cycle vs a slow and thoughtful conveyance of meaningful fact).
The fact that NYT, Reuters, etc are all reporting on a fast news cycle and using similar content doesn't mean that the content they're reporting is intended to inform me and give me a more realistic grounding necessarily. It could also mean they all have the same profit motives and all optimize to produce more clicks rather than inform more meaningfully.
To make sure I'm not being taken the wrong way, I do think the news generally does strive to be both true and to convey information. I think that the competing need to drive clicks/ad-dollars/etc results in it conveying information poorly. It frames true facts in ways that drive outrage to drive clicks. It tries to create a quick news cycles so there's always new things to publish. The faster news cycle favors reporters creating quick pieces, and disfavors serious investigative reporting. I don't think the news media succeeds on informing me well of important things, but rather succeeds on making me weary with a deluge of facts that won't matter in 2 weeks.
Re: Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper (1807)
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the protests are 'mostly peaceful' and any violence is due to reactionaries.
I don't think anyone is claiming the protests are 100% peaceful. The question, then, is how much violence occurs relative to total protest activity? If fewer than 50% of protestors engage in violence, wouldn't it then be accurate to describe the protest as 'mostly peaceful'?
It gives a false impression. If even a few percent of 10s of thousands of protesters is looting and rioting that can do enormous damage.
Re: Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper (1807)
#264What’s more insidious than the accuracy of what you read in the media is the control the media has on what they actually cover. If you cast a wide enough net, it pretty quickly becomes apparent that the media is very selective about what they cover. One human rights issue may get front page coverage, while another is completely ignored. The vast majority of people think they are focused on important issues, when in f…
[deleted]
Re: Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper (1807)
#265The feeling that it's just completely impossible to know what's going on in the world is really debilitating. I spend probably an hour a day reading headlines from major outlets with a bunch of different political alignments, and to be honest, I don't really know why I even do it. By the end of it, all I really have is a vague silhouette of a picture of what might have happened, according to a handful of corporations…
Friends, there is a solution!
- If you're a CONSERVATIVE, read liberal.
- If you're a LIBERAL, read conservative.
- If you're a proclaimed CENTRIST, read everything.
Schools don't teach us how to read and process information objectively but hopefully your first history professor explained that historical bias and bias in writing well...is human and old as history itself. Embrace it!
1. Check the veracity of claims and statements made in popular news stories, social media posts and political statements.
2. Additionally, there is a separate body, International Fact-Checking Network, that checks the common fact-checking organizations above for bias and truth as well in their fact checking.
- https://www.poynter.org/ifcn/
- https://www.poynter.org/major-funders/
3. There's also the independently run MediaBiasFactCheck site which has found that the fact-checking sites above are pretty close to the center in their fact-checking and myth-busting.
Re: Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper (1807)
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing with those books is, they are 100% based on faith. There are no underlying facts that they're based on. They're independently constructed origin myths and allegorical morality tales. With an article in the NYT, it's a narrative representation of objective facts as filtered through the lens of a reporter. If you think it's B.S. check Reuters, check WaPo, check NPR, hell check Fox reporting on the same core s…
I don't accept your premise that books are not factual and news media is more/entirely factual. Do you have any evidence on that? The evidence I've got generally sways towards well-regarded non-fiction book authors generally having more expertise in the area they write about than well-regarded journalists. This also makes intuitive sense - journalists often write about many subjects and act as second-hand sources, wh…
With regard to the first point, I meant those particular religious texts you cited. I'm a huge fan of nonfiction books in general.
When I open NYT, Politico, and WaPo I see:
> Justice Dept. Plans to File Antitrust Charges Against Google in Coming Weeks > Justice Department expected to file antitrust suit against Google > The Justice Department could file a lawsuit against Google this month, overriding skepticism from its own top lawyers
Based off of this, I figure the Justice Department will probably do some antitrust stuff involving Google in the near future.
It's probably not 100% a sure thing that it's going to happen, but it probably will, and it's now on my radar to keep an eye on since that might actually wind up being a big deal.
That's what I want out of the news. I'm not sure what else I would expect? If I open and read any of those articles, there will be different takes on the Justice department's plan to go after google, and I can read into those however much I want, but the core facts are that the Justice department is planning on going after Google. I don't think that's made up, and I think antitrust + big tech is a pretty important issue to keep an eye on.
Re: Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper (1807)
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I see is that foreign news have no idea of what is happening in my country, they all just repeat some superficial and normally wrong pieces. At the same time, domestic media is all lying through their teeth. With some work one can disecate the news, separate what can't possibly be lies (because it would lead to problems), and reassembly something into an overall picture. (Who has the time for all this?) But one…
The BBC is not 'wrong' - it's maybe just superficial and doesn't have enough detail. The anecdotes about 'lying press' on this thread are misleading. 'Respected' news entities do not just 'make stuff up'. Definitely no the BBC, they have standards. The problem with the bigger agencies is narrative bias, and yes, if 'within America' the narrative is pushed to 'one side' hard by the local press, then the international…
Would you consider leaving out key facts that drastically alter the conclusion one might draw, lying? I would.
How about covering one news story, then not covering another on the same topic, such that you form a very different opinion about “what is going on”?
Re: Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper (1807)
#268The feeling that it's just completely impossible to know what's going on in the world is really debilitating. I spend probably an hour a day reading headlines from major outlets with a bunch of different political alignments, and to be honest, I don't really know why I even do it. By the end of it, all I really have is a vague silhouette of a picture of what might have happened, according to a handful of corporations…
> The feeling that it's just completely impossible to know what's going on in the world is really debilitating. Honestly, I think the standards you seem to be setting for yourself are too high. As far as I know, none of us are God, so it is completely impossible for us to know what's going on in the world. > according to a handful of corporations whose job it is to turn the smallest amount of factual raw material int…
Not just about corporations turning the news into "entertaining spectacle". Its scary from a climate change perspective that in my country (Australia), that people invested in the mining and fossil fuel industries are also investing in TV.
Re: Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper (1807)
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Ignoring the world around them is how so many Americans still think Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Consider that maybe them ingesting news from the President and other "news sources" are the reason they think this. Not because they are ignoring the world. If they ignored the world around them, they wouldn't have an opinion at all. So in that case, how good is the consumption of information? This is a lot like…
I don't mean to be dismissive of your argument. I'm trying to follow it. However, your argument seems to be for a country of passive, ignorant sheep that let whoever is in the White House do whatever they want? The problem in '03 wasn't that people were reading too much, it was that they had no idea what was going on. The more you read, the more news from the President becomes contextualized, and you can have a more…
I don't agree with the characterization of "passive, ignorant sheep", but otherwise I'll bite that bullet. My attitude towards the US government is very similar to my attitude towards McDonalds Corporation; I learn a bit about their operations because I'm curious about large and powerful organizations, but I don't feel much obligation to keep my knowledge up to date.
Re: Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper (1807)
#270The feeling that it's just completely impossible to know what's going on in the world is really debilitating. I spend probably an hour a day reading headlines from major outlets with a bunch of different political alignments, and to be honest, I don't really know why I even do it. By the end of it, all I really have is a vague silhouette of a picture of what might have happened, according to a handful of corporations…
Friends, there is a solution! - If you're a CONSERVATIVE, read liberal. - If you're a LIBERAL, read conservative. - If you're a proclaimed CENTRIST, read everything. Schools don't teach us how to read and process information objectively but hopefully your first history professor explained that historical bias and bias in writing well...is human and old as history itself. Embrace it! 1. Check the veracity of claims an…
Or simply ignore everything that isn't local?
The problem seems to be more centralisation of power and decision making. Consume information to act rather than sit and tweet.